BREAKING CHANGES IN 0.99.x #86
Comments
|
(Sorry guys. Had to make a new release in a hurry here. The family was really unhappy as their calendars were suddenly not updated and the practice and matches started again after summer this week...) |
|
Thanks @Olen and sorry for my slipups - partly a consequence of rushing things while moving from broken Windows environment to Linux... |
|
Oh, I don't blame you. You have done tremendous effort! It was just a warning that I actually made a release before everything was tested and verified and did not give people more time to adjust for the new function names etc. |
|
@elliot-100 What do you think? Should we release 1.0.0 with all the breaking changes? I have not received any bug reports since releasing 0.99, but I am not sure how much it has been tested by others than me... |
|
I'm using the latest to list events and the people attending. No problems.
…On Mon, 11 Sept 2023, 13:43 Olen, ***@***.***> wrote:
@elliot-100 <https://github.com/elliot-100> What do you think? Should we
release 1.0.0 with all the breaking changes?
I have not received any bug reports since releasing 0.99, but I am not
sure how much it has been tested by others than me...
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#86 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AND7ND65CRWQJTMZHQ5SUITXZ4BQ7ANCNFSM6AAAAAA36CG7GI>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
I think the very next step is to document what the changes are, and which are breaking. 0.99x don't have release notes. I will add, and this can be the basis for the next version. To be honest I think these should have been labelled something like 0.11.0rc1 and 0.11.0rc2, (or ...alpha or ...beta) as they introduce new functionality (#62) as well as fixes, and suffixes like this are understood by dependency management. Not sure I understand the need to go to 1.0.0 at this point - to me that implies pretty stable development status, and I don't think we are there - the lack of test suite, and thus quality assurance is a key indicator. I'd say the next stable version should be 0.100.0, as we can't move backwards. If we want a pre-release before that, it should be e.g. 0.100.0rc1, etc.
I think it's unlikely that all the write/send functions work, but that's one for another day. |
|
OK, I've reviewed changes and generated/written/revised release notes for https://github.com/Olen/Spond/releases/tag/0.99.0 and https://github.com/Olen/Spond/releases/tag/0.99.1. I've noted all the potentially breaking changes I can see. I haven't included changes that aren't significant to end users (e.g. dev-deps, code style/linting CI changes) but can do; I tend to put this in a separate section. |
|
Hi again, and thanks for the update. When it comes to version numers, I tend to be slightly "liberal". Since this version contains a lot of breaking changes, with almost all (public) functions changing the name, I thought it would be good to highlight that. But I agreee that adding CI-changes etc. to the changelog is not important for normal users. |
As per release notes, I could only find one signature change since 0.10.1 (the README has not been updated though). Have I missed something?
|
|
Hm. I was sure the changes from camelCase to snake_case happened between 0.10.1 and now? That's why I wanted to jump. But maybe that was before? In that case, I agree. The 0.99 should have been tagged as a beta, but I wanted to push it to pip as quickly as possible because 0.10.1 did not work due to the API-changes. |
|
Closing - I think any remaining issues are documented elsewhere. |
0.99.x contains breaking changes.
Mostly, they are simple replacements of
camelCase()tosnake_case()of function names.Please update with care.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: