Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

upgrade to Safe.Meta 5.1.0 #632

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 11, 2024
Merged

upgrade to Safe.Meta 5.1.0 #632

merged 2 commits into from
Oct 11, 2024

Conversation

Larocceau
Copy link
Contributor

Upgrade to use SAFE.Meta 5.1.0
Closes #631

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You don't need to change these lines. ~> means "compatible with", so ~> 5 is fine.

See https://fsprojects.github.io/Paket/nuget-dependencies.html#Pessimistic-version-constraint.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah crap, I was afraid of that... that means ppl are going to have unexpected breaking changes when they update their packages on SAFE 5.x apps. Perhaps we should release a 5.1.1 of the meta packages and revert those breaking changes? Then we could release them as 6.0.0, paired with SAFE.Template 6.0.0?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmm yeah good point 🫤 What do you reckon about a 6.0 release @isaacabraham?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If we don't want a v6 template release, we could break the synchronisation with metapackages.

@isaacabraham
Copy link
Member

Hmm. I'll be honest - I'm really not that fussed about a minor breaking change like this. I suppose we could work around it by changing the name of the union case to e.g. InProgress and then making an alias Loading which is InProgress None but I think that this will be more trouble than it's worth.

The number of people that are aware of and using SAFE.Meta types since we've released it will be very small, I think.

As long as we add some decent docs (that we can add to the /// comments) I think that that's acceptable.

@Larocceau Larocceau merged commit 364e690 into master Oct 11, 2024
1 check passed
@jwthomson jwthomson deleted the safe.meta-5.1.0 branch October 11, 2024 15:11
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Upgrade to Meta v 5.1.0
4 participants