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

Migrate relevant 3.2 commits to the new branch structure #4188

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: v3.2-dev
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

handrews
Copy link
Member

This includes the few commits that were:

  • part of v3.2.0-dev
  • not part of v3.1.1-dev
  • not about removing the special Path Item Object $ref, or undo-ing that removal (let's just skip the whole thing...)

These were handled with git format-patch and git am, like we have been doing to sync different release lines. In some cases, I noticed that the anchors for the new fields were incorrect and fixed them as if they were git am merge conflicts (so there are not separate commits).

So this should be as close to what's on v3.2.0-dev in the versions/3.2.0.md file as we need it to be. But not identical.

@handrews handrews added the approved pr port PRs that just port an approved PR to another version label Nov 11, 2024
@handrews handrews added this to the v3.2.0 milestone Nov 11, 2024
@handrews handrews requested review from a team as code owners November 11, 2024 00:02
src/oas.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@ralfhandl ralfhandl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

+1, one nit that I could address in a separate PR if I absolutely have to 😎

@ralfhandl ralfhandl requested a review from a team November 12, 2024 12:21
mikekistler
mikekistler previously approved these changes Nov 12, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@mikekistler mikekistler left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good. 👍

@handrews
Copy link
Member Author

@ralfhandl I merged your nit even though this was a port :-) Could you and @mikekistler please re-approve?

ralfhandl
ralfhandl previously approved these changes Nov 12, 2024
@ralfhandl
Copy link
Contributor

@handrews Gladly, thanks!

@ralfhandl ralfhandl requested review from mikekistler and a team November 12, 2024 16:52
@lornajane lornajane marked this pull request as draft November 14, 2024 17:15
@lornajane
Copy link
Contributor

Changed to draft status to allow more discussion of the best way to add these and possibly other changes. There's more discussion on #4106

@karenetheridge
Copy link
Member

Looks like there would be schema changes to accompany these?

@handrews
Copy link
Member Author

In the TDC Call we decided to defer CIBA to 3.3 based on #4106 (if that somehow comes together quickly enough, it can get on the 3.2 train, but we won't hold up 3.2 since we're going to do 3.3 immediately after per #4210). I'm going to remove the CIBA commit(s) and take this out of draft.

@karenetheridge since this is just porting pre-existing work, please feel free to make a follow-up PR for the relevant schema changes on the v3.2-dev branch. I don't want to introduce new work in this PR.

@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ cp -p ../../node_modules/respec/builds/respec-w3c.* ../../deploy/js/
latest=`git describe --abbrev=0 --tags`
latestCopied=none
lastMinor="-"
for filename in $(ls -1 ../../versions/[23456789].*.md | sort -r) ; do
for filename in ../../versions/3.2.0.md ; do
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why this change? There is no 3.2.0.md file in the v3.2-dev branch.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't remember this change being part of this PR at all, let me figure out what happened and update.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@ralfhandl should be fixed now!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved pr port PRs that just port an approved PR to another version
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants