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

[release_candidate_changelog] CHANGELOG updates to prime for next RC.… #264

Closed
wants to merge 6 commits into from

Conversation

katelovescode
Copy link
Contributor

… Needs @arangamani's review

@katelovescode katelovescode mentioned this pull request Jan 21, 2018
@katelovescode
Copy link
Contributor Author

@arangamani I'd also like to recommend we make develop the default branch so we can use git flow and build up stable code changes that will get merged to master only on version deploy, to prevent these concerns about merging to master in the future. Thoughts?

@luke-hill
Copy link

From the comments raised and assuming every merge you've pushed in is correct. How easy is it to create a PR (Dependent on order of merges), of everything "UP TO" #192 ??

If you do that and release as a v1.6 at least it's a start, and we're then able to cut 192 and everything else as a 2.0 ?

CHANGELOG.md Outdated
@@ -3,6 +3,19 @@ CHANGELOG

upcoming
--------
Recommendation: Breaking change is `login_with_pry` config file - it's probable this will affect people's development or testing locally but shouldn't affect production usage; I'd be comfortable with this being 1.6.0, or bumping to 2.0.0 depending on @arangamani's thoughts.
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Let's bump it to 2.0.0. We should document how to upgrade the config file. Can you see if there is any other breaking changes we would want to introduce?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There are a few that I can consider as candidates (purely because I like them and think they're cool :D ), but they will need to be tested and merged. I'll add this to my to-do for next week.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

After a brief skim of open PRs:

I'm not sure if #225 and #256 are ready; I'm also not sure if Groovy script is the right way to handle this, so I would like to leave those out for a later release.

Basically, given my choice, I'd like to incorporate everything except #225 and #256 if we're going to do a version update. We can stop accepting PRs for the 2.0.0 release, and do it this way. There are also a lot of unaddressed issues that I haven't had a chance to comment on yet; if you want more breaking changes and a bigger "strategy" I can spend some more time evaluating this and come up with a bigger release. @arangamani - let me know what you think.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@arangamani - pinging again for visibility.

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@katelovescode Let's go with your proposal and bump version and include only the well-understood PRs.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@arangamani - I will review the open PRs listed above and merge them in if they work. I'll update the changelog. What's the process for a version bump? Make a release in git tagged with the new version number and push to develop and master?

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, merge everything to master/develop, and then make a tag after all tests pass. Let me know when you have the tag ready, and I'll push it to rubygems.org. That part is still not automated yet.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks! Will do!

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