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

docs(update): Fix a typo and remove unneeded statement #7152

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 19, 2024

Conversation

DanKaplanSES
Copy link
Contributor

@DanKaplanSES DanKaplanSES commented Jan 18, 2024

  • I have explicitly stated how caret dependencies below 1.0.0 behave differently. Before, this information had to be inferred from the examples.
  • Fixed a typo

References

- I have explicitly stated how caret dependencies below 1.0.0 behave differently. Before, this information had to be inferred from the examples.
- Fixed a typo
@DanKaplanSES DanKaplanSES requested a review from a team as a code owner January 18, 2024 04:57
@DanKaplanSES
Copy link
Contributor Author

Is there a reason the Tilde section is sandwiched between the two Caret sections?

equivalent to `>=1.1.1 <1.2.0`. So the highest-sorting version that satisfies
`~1.1.1` is used, which is `1.1.2`.

#### Caret Dependencies below 1.0.0

Suppose `app` has a caret dependency on a version below `1.0.0`, for example:
Caret dependencies below 1.0.0 consider minor versions to be breaking changes. Suppose `app` has a caret dependency on a version below `1.0.0`, for example:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this isn't accurate. In vX.Y.Z, X is major, Y minor, Z patch - but it's the same in v0.X.Y and v0.0.X.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure what you mean by "it's the same in..." but I've since learned how what I said was wrong. This is my current understanding: https://stackoverflow.com/a/77837308/61624 If that's correct, I can try to reword this PR.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, that SO post is identical to my previous comment.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've decided to just revert this line for now.

What you think about integrating that StackOverflow post into the example section of the documentation?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure how valuable it would be; new packages start at 1.0.0 by default, and https://semver.npmjs.com exists, so in practice most people don't run into the v0 distinction.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@DanKaplanSES DanKaplanSES Jan 18, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry, I meant integrating the StackOverflow post into the npmjs example section down to the subdependencies section, not just the details about ^ below 1.0.0.

https://semver.npmjs.com/ exists, so in practice most people don't run into the v0 distinction.

Sorry again, I'm not seeing the connection.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Starting at v1 is why most people don’t run into the v0 semantics.

I’m not sure which part you’re referring to in the SO post.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As described by this comment, I'm going to resolve this and continue the conversation elsewhere.

@DanKaplanSES DanKaplanSES changed the title Explicitly state how caret dependencies below 1.0.0 behave Fix a typo and remove a tautological statement Jan 18, 2024
@DanKaplanSES
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ljharb I've reduced the scope of this PR to typo fixes. Regarding our v0 conversation, if it's all right by you, I'll submit a separate PR for it because:

  1. It allows this PR to be merged (if desired) before resolving our v0 conversation.
  2. I don't think I'm doing a great job describing my v0 proposal: I can show what I mean in a PR and I think that would help my explanation.

Thanks!

Copy link
Contributor

@ljharb ljharb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

seems reasonable

@wraithgar wraithgar changed the title Fix a typo and remove a tautological statement docs(update): Fix a typo and remove unneeded statement Jan 19, 2024
@wraithgar wraithgar merged commit dd5699f into npm:latest Jan 19, 2024
8 of 11 checks passed
@github-actions github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Jan 19, 2024
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.

3 participants