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

ansible.posix reverted the breaking change #478

Merged

Conversation

mariolenz
Copy link
Collaborator

It looks like ansible.posix 1.6.1 reverted the breaking change that has been introduced in 1.6.0. We should undo / revert #469.

Ref: ansible-collections/ansible.posix@cd43bd1
Ref: ansible-collections/ansible.posix#574

@felixfontein
Copy link
Contributor

We should probably add a changelog entry that ends up in the porting guide that says that the breaking change has been reverted. Otherwise users only see a breaking change in the porting guide but don't see that it is no longer in there, due to both the 1.6.0 and 1.6.1 changelogs being included.

@felixfontein
Copy link
Contributor

It's probably better to have a mechanism to hide specific changelog entries from the combined changelog. I might work on that during the next days.

@mariolenz
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Something like ignore-changelog-entries.yml:

# Ignore removal because it has been undone
ansible.posix:
  1.6.0:
    removed_features:
    - skippy - Remove skippy pluglin as it is no longer supported(https://github.com/ansible-collections/ansible.posix/issues/350).

or something similar? Yes, I can see how this could be helpful in cases like this.

@felixfontein
Copy link
Contributor

I'd probably try to integrate this into changelog.yaml to avoid having yet another file to handle...

@felixfontein felixfontein merged commit 083fe52 into ansible-community:main Oct 13, 2024
5 checks passed
@felixfontein
Copy link
Contributor

@mariolenz thanks!

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.

2 participants