Please Release a New Version #140

Activity

1. pjohnmeyer

   added

   discussion

   on Jan 13, 2017
2. pjohnmeyer commented on Jan 13, 2017

   

   pjohnmeyer

   on Jan 13, 2017

   Member

   More actions

   As of today I am starting on getting 2.0 released; you can expect it in the next few weeks. I have in the past and will hopefully remember to issue a pull request to Homebrew.
3. pjohnmeyer

   closed this as completedon Jan 13, 2017
4. grahamreeds commented on Jan 14, 2017

   

   grahamreeds

   on Jan 14, 2017 via email

   Contributor

   More actions

   I am still a bit mystified as to what 2.x is going to give us over 1.7. Usually you change the major number if you are going to make breaking changes and I believe that would be a bad idea. You are threatening to strand a lot of people on 1.6.x. The only thing I could see that might warrant a 2.x is a total rewrite making it less macro based but since c++ doesn't have reflection I think (like so many other attempts) that it would be doomed to failure. GR

   …

   Sent from my Nexus 6P

   On 13 Jan 2017 19:00, "Patrick Johnmeyer" ***@***.***> wrote: As of today I am starting on getting 2.0 released; you can expect it in the next few weeks. I have in the past and will hopefully remember to issue a pull request to Homebrew. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#140 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEy9nIWdhhLhZdVZ6JoC6uROvA-dBNGCks5rR8nLgaJpZM4LNc7t> .
5. pjohnmeyer commented on Jan 14, 2017

   

   pjohnmeyer

   on Jan 14, 2017

   Member

   More actions

   @grahamreeds :

   Back in January I announced that the project would start using Semantic Versioning after 1.5.0.

   In July you wrote this issue which finally gave me the driver to make the change suggested in this request. That change, per Semantic Versioning, required me to change the major version number. I wrote about this in August, explaining why it was a breaking change, and explaining how minor the changes were. Your issue was labeled 2.0.0 around that same time.

   In the one month that the pull request remained open, nobody raised any concerns. In the nearly five months between its merge and release, nobody raised any concerns.

   In short, 2.0 implements an enhancement requested before the project was even on GitHub, in order to fix an issue you requested be fixed, in a manner which will not break 99% of users, and will possibly make tests run faster for others, after months of silence from the community on the matter.

   I would be shocked if these changes "strand" anybody, but they are potentially breaking. It would be incorrect to call this 1.7, and I have no interest in rolling the changes back as they are architecturally sound changes. Everyone is welcome to use 1.6.x for as long as they like -- it's not going anywhere -- but the project is moving forward.