-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 228
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
add CONTRIBUTING guidelines and initial changelogs #249
Conversation
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.
Good job here, this was long overdue.
|
||
## Versioning | ||
|
||
As many crates in the rust ecosystem, all crates in parity-common follow [semantic versioning]. This means bumping PATCH version on bug fixes that don't break backwards compatibility, MINOR version on new features and MAJOR version otherwise (MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH). Versions < 1.0 are considered to have the format 0.MAJOR.MINOR, which means bumping MINOR version for all non-breaking changes. |
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.
Worth mentioning the exception of serde
that isn't following semver? Caution against rand
upgrades?
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.
Not sure what to add here. Although serde
doesn't follow semver for minor
and patch
bumping, it will bump major
on a breaking change. And not sure how rand
is different in terms of breaking changes from other crates. But open to any suggestions.
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.
serde
: so you're saying we don't need to mention it not following semver because minor/
patchreleases are backwards compatible?
rand: my thinking was simply that some crate updates are (much) more risky than others, but it's hard to come out and say "don't send PRs to upgrade
rand` because it's a mess". But I guess we can handle that as/if PRs come in.
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.
yep, pretty much
Co-Authored-By: David <dvdplm@gmail.com>
This reverts commit 3fd73cb.
Fixes #248.
Closes #166.