-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 154
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
214f1d2
commit e2dbb40
Showing
6 changed files
with
44 additions
and
21 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
Oops, something went wrong.
e2dbb40
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.
Because the syntax changed I think this should be released as
0.9.0
instead of0.8.5
e2dbb40
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.
Mayhaps, but I was saving the 0.9.0 version for when we removed the legacy support. At this point, it's really not practical to change the version anyway since it's been release for quite some time now.
e2dbb40
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 have the problem that an automatic bower update from
v0.8.4
tov0.8.5
broke my code.bower expects semantic versioning, were patch revisions should not break backwards compatibility.
By the way, is v0.8.6 already on the horizon?
e2dbb40
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.
Hard to say. We definitely could release the work of @kenirwin as a minor update, but I've been especially busy these last few weeks and so a bit unable to review all of the changes made or to run tests.
Apologies for the automatic bower update breaking the code though. It was surely an oversight on my part. I'll be more careful with the versioning in the future.
e2dbb40
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.
@mojoaxel is right, we should not break backwards compatibility with patch version, that is important to deliver code people can relay on