-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 217
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
- Loading branch information
1 parent
a141f9f
commit 756cc4a
Showing
3 changed files
with
37 additions
and
2 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
756cc4a
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hello, why did you change the versioning way ?
Now, we need to point to 2.1 instead of 2.1.0 ... is it normal ?
Here a debian output for example:
And you did not credit my commits those 2 :
756cc4a
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, I agree that the release should have been
2.1.0
(like the git tag, and like the changelog also states). Though the project precedence hasn't settled yet, pom versions going back through initial major versions are:1.1.0
,1.3.0
,1.4.0
,2.0
,2.1
I think this and your missing changelog entries were just a mistake and oversight, apologies for that.
@adejanovski ?
756cc4a
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I should probably have used
2.1.0
indeed but used the same pattern as the previous major release. We'll try to avoid that in the future and include the patch number in the release version.We use a tool that generates the changelog for us and sometimes (I'm not sure why), it drops the contributor handle from the output 🤷
I'll ninja fix that shortly.
756cc4a
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Changelog fixed 👍
756cc4a
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks a lot for the credits :-)
For the version, will you update the futur release to match again the "old" versioning way ?
756cc4a
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yes, we'll consistently use
x.x.x
for all future releases.And thanks for the contributions!
756cc4a
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That will be perfect 👍
Thanks to you and your great tool :)