Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merge 2.0 branch into master #1201

Merged
merged 72 commits into from
Aug 9, 2019
Merged

Merge 2.0 branch into master #1201

merged 72 commits into from
Aug 9, 2019

Conversation

franmomu
Copy link
Contributor

@franmomu franmomu commented Aug 6, 2019

Q A
Branch? master
Bug fix? yes
New feature? yes
BC breaks? no
Deprecations? no
Tests pass? yes
Fixed tickets
License MIT
Doc PR

This is like #1199, merging 2.0 branch into master so lost commits are recovered in master as well

robfrawley and others added 30 commits May 21, 2017 16:31
Move to trusty for travis except for php 5.3
return filter function String
…m-allowed-failures

Remove Symfony 3.3 from allowed failures
…d-of-version-numbers

Use simplified Symfony version comparison operation and CS fixes
[Composer] Allow imagine-library version 0.7.0
- Allow construction of Locator without data roots for BC
- Mark FilesystemLocator::setOptions deprecated
Modify some PHP Annotations
Added support for centerright and centerleft position
@franmomu franmomu closed this Aug 6, 2019
@franmomu franmomu reopened this Aug 6, 2019
@dbu
Copy link
Member

dbu commented Aug 6, 2019

i am confused by the branches in this repository. master currently only has the alias that 1.0-dev is version 1, but has no alias for what the master branch should see. if master is 2.x, we should not have a 2.0 branch. if master is 1.x we should not have had the 1.0 branch and should rather merge 1.0 to master than merge 2.0 to master.

note that there is no release of version 2 yet, so master can't mean 3.x. @lsmith77 or @michellesanver can one of you help us out here and clarify this?

@lsmith77
Copy link
Contributor

lsmith77 commented Aug 6, 2019

@maximgubar might remember the details .. but afaik 2.0 was used to prepare the 2.0 release .. after the 2.0 release, master became the source for 2.0 releases .. but I am not 100% sure

@dbu
Copy link
Member

dbu commented Aug 6, 2019

oh, i overlooked the 2.0.0 and 2.1.0 releases because older tags use the v prefix. does 2.0 to master have other differences than what you added from 1.0 @franmomu ? if master has no BC breaks versus 2, i suggest we merge this and then remove the 2.0 branch to avoid confusion.

and imho there should be a branch alias for dev-master: 2.x if master represents version 2.

@franmomu
Copy link
Contributor Author

franmomu commented Aug 6, 2019

oops I thought 2.0 branch was for 2.x releases. Apart from the changes from 1.0, here are included a couple of commits (6440590 and 647d51e) that are in 2.0 and not in master

@dbu
Copy link
Member

dbu commented Aug 9, 2019

looking at 2.0...master there seem to be cs cleanups and one big new feature, the configuration model classes. i don't think they are a BC break, so imho we can merge this and then remove the 2.0 branch for clarity. wdyt @michellesanver ?

@michellesanver
Copy link
Contributor

Sounds like a perfect plan! :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet