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

proposal: gin/v2? #3766

Open
thinkerou opened this issue Nov 1, 2023 · 4 comments
Open

proposal: gin/v2? #3766

thinkerou opened this issue Nov 1, 2023 · 4 comments

Comments

@thinkerou
Copy link
Member

thinkerou commented Nov 1, 2023

based on golang/go#63397 (encoding/json/v2) and #3391, we uses json/v2, not support third json but open interface and middleware.

@thinkerou thinkerou closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Nov 13, 2023
@thinkerou thinkerou reopened this May 8, 2024
@thinkerou thinkerou changed the title [draft] proposal: gin/v2? proposal: gin/v2? May 8, 2024
@thinkerou thinkerou pinned this issue May 9, 2024
@flc1125
Copy link
Contributor

flc1125 commented May 10, 2024

I recommend adjusting the default branch to 1.x and 2.x, with 1.x being the default branch until 2.x becomes stable.

Updates to the 1.x version can be merged into the 2.x branch, allowing for parallel maintenance of both branches. Of course, we can also set an end-of-maintenance date for 1.x to facilitate the progression of 2.x, and even 3.x.

It seems to me that the future development potential of gin will continue to grow.

I look forward to gin developing even better.

@flc1125
Copy link
Contributor

flc1125 commented May 10, 2024

Regarding the go mod section, I suggest the following:

  • 1.x: github.com/gin-gonic/gin
  • 2.x: github.com/gin-gonic/gin/v2

Instead of adding a v2 directory on top of the 1.x version.

@thinkerou
Copy link
Member Author

Regarding the go mod section, I suggest the following:

  • 1.x: github.com/gin-gonic/gin
  • 2.x: github.com/gin-gonic/gin/v2

Instead of adding a v2 directory on top of the 1.x version.

yes

@sk-
Copy link

sk- commented Jul 29, 2024

Would this new version consider having modular dependencies, like proposed in PR 1856?

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants