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

Use SemVer for packaging (eg. 1.2 should have been 2.0) #36

Closed
leplatrem opened this issue Oct 17, 2019 · 7 comments
Closed

Use SemVer for packaging (eg. 1.2 should have been 2.0) #36

leplatrem opened this issue Oct 17, 2019 · 7 comments
Labels

Comments

@leplatrem
Copy link
Contributor

leplatrem commented Oct 17, 2019

Version 1.2 was released with a number of breaking changes, breaking projects (eg. Kinto/kinto#2296)

(Drop support for Python 3.4, renamed the ZopeTransactionExtension class to ZopeTransactionEvents)

Would you mind following SemVer for following releases please?

@jugmac00
Copy link
Member

"Drop support for Python 3.4..." dropped support for Python 3.4 - I know this as I reviewed the PR.

I guess you meant the PR just before: #34

@Natim
Copy link

Natim commented Oct 17, 2019

I guess you meant the PR just before: #34

Indeed

@leplatrem
Copy link
Contributor Author

I guess you meant the PR just before: #34

Well, the PR does not really have anything to do with the version picked during the release.
In this case I would say that this commit 1c2a56f is the one concerned.

Bumping major when a breaking change is part of a release is a recommended practice, but no big deal, we'll survive :)

@mgedmin
Copy link
Member

mgedmin commented Oct 18, 2019

Should we re-release 1.2 as 2.0?

@mgedmin
Copy link
Member

mgedmin commented Oct 18, 2019

And also we should add instructions for users about how they should adapt their code to the changelog, see #37.

@leplatrem
Copy link
Contributor Author

Should we re-release 1.2 as 2.0?

I don't it's necessary. Just let's consider it for the next breaking change!

And also we should add instructions for users about how they should adapt their code to the changelog, see #37.

Yes, that would definitely be helpful!

@icemac
Copy link
Member

icemac commented Dec 9, 2019

As a re-release does not seem necessary, I am closing this issue as "won't fix".
Please reopen if needed.

@icemac icemac closed this as completed Dec 9, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants