-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 273
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
docs: adapting release process to new definition setup #659
docs: adapting release process to new definition setup #659
Conversation
@jonaslagoni both PRs are draft, is it something you want me to look into now or wait? |
Forgot to take you off as a reviewer sorry! We need to figure out asyncapi/spec-json-schemas#128 (comment) before it can be finalized. |
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed! |
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed! 0 Bugs No Coverage information |
I can't figure out if the link should point to https://github.com/asyncapi/spec-json-schemas/tree/next-major instead of master? 🧐 |
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.
LGTM 👍
I'd leave it pointing to master because we not only create new versions on majors. |
As the new changes in |
Hey folks, afaik split JSON Schema definitions are not released and are not in master, so should not be used in 2.4 and should not be mentioned in the release process document for now, not on master. |
They should totally be merged in |
Related PR asyncapi/spec-json-schemas#184 |
did you have some conversation somewhere about the definitions split that I'm not aware of? On PR that introduced it, I remember the goal was 3.0 spec release. This is why it was not released as |
it was, however, the changes introduced for spec 3.0 is not a breaking change in itself, just another spec version 🙂 And as I understood @smoya wanted the split definitions for spec 2.4 as it makes it much easier to contribute. That is the reason we are pushing for just releasing the feature cause it does not really make sense to delay it as no other changes are breaking. |
Some of us realized during last Spec 3.0 meeting that this could be released earlier without having to wait since it has nothing to do with Spec 3.0. You can watch the video in https://youtu.be/GRfVx5bd9ag. As I raised here, why would we wait for releasing this? |
@smoya no need to wait, I was only surprised by a sudden change in approach and just wanted to understand where it is coming from 😄 I'm all with releasing it now. I'm actually always supportive of major releases in our libraries whenever there is a need, without being afraid of introducing breaking changes often, as long as it is needed from DX point of view. |
The base branch was changed.
Alright, I have updated the PR, retarget it to master, and added links to the 3.0.0 schema changes as an example. Is ready to be reviewed. |
Co-authored-by: Fran Méndez <fmvilas@gmail.com>
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed! 0 Bugs No Coverage information |
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.
👍
/rtm |
🎉 This PR is included in version 2.5.0-next-major-spec.1 🎉 The release is available on GitHub release Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
Forget about the last comment saying it was released in version 2.5.0-next-major-spec.1. I made a mistake and it created this version but it should actually be |
🎉 This PR is included in version 2.5.0-next-spec.5 🎉 The release is available on GitHub release Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
Recent comments about the release from the bot were added by mistake. More details in #899 |
This PR adapts the release process documentation to follow the new definition setup in the spec-json-schemas repository.
Related PR in spec-json-schemas: asyncapi/spec-json-schemas#128