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

Let's version this! #516

Open
4 of 8 tasks
quicksnap opened this issue Nov 10, 2015 · 12 comments
Open
4 of 8 tasks

Let's version this! #516

quicksnap opened this issue Nov 10, 2015 · 12 comments

Comments

@quicksnap
Copy link
Collaborator

Let's shore up any big issues and stamp a version on this. This issue covers the following:

Some goals:

@lycon2014
Copy link

I agree let's make it happen

@justingreenberg
Copy link
Contributor

@quicksnap thanks for tackling this! considering the fast-moving nature of the this repo, ecosystem and dependencies i definitely support versioning...

as far as outstanding tasks, in my opinion #402 might be a little ambitious for a first release. i think the most important issue right now is getting babel 6 integrated and stable #488. we're currently in a holding pattern until react-transform plugin is updated to support the new api (the author indicates we're probably looking at a week or two on that update)

@quicksnap
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@justingreenberg do you think we could stamp a version without upgrading to babel 6? I feel it's still a little fresh. Perhaps we can do a next version once the ecosystem around it has stabilized.

@erikras
Copy link
Owner

erikras commented Nov 10, 2015

I agree that this is needed. I'm fine with stamping it with one now. It's never going to be "complete", of course.

Is v1.0 not "cool" enough? 😄

@justingreenberg
Copy link
Contributor

@erikras @quicksnap since we're anticipating some pretty breaking changes in the next week, maybe stamp 0.9.0 today and create a 1.0.0 milestone with #96, #162 and #417 and #488? if not we could just start with v1 today—i'm totally cool with it either way!

@erikras
Copy link
Owner

erikras commented Nov 10, 2015

Done. v0.9.0.

Since this is not a library, it only makes vague sense to follow some semblance of semver. I'm going to need some help writing the release pages and any "migration guides", since I don't have time to follow every single improvement.

@snackycracky
Copy link
Contributor

:shipit:

@justingreenberg
Copy link
Contributor

@erikras that's completely understandable

the redux ecosystem is moving so quickly, i think versioning this repo is really about tracking patches and general updates as best practices continue to emerge—which is especially important for people using this as a starter. since it's not a library, i don't think we need to worry too much about migration guides.

that said, it might be a good idea to set some basic contributing guidelines ie to normalize the commit log. personally i've always been a fan of angular's commit message guidelines where commit messages generally conform to <type>(<scope>): <subject>

#459 refactor(utils/url): create url mapper utility function
#463 chore(webpack): update to isomorphic tools v2
#494 fix(babel): correct dependencies and polyfills
#510 feat(app): add react-bootstrap responsive navbar

EDIT: added in #523 (merged)

@quicksnap with respect to the babel migration, when i was putting together a PR last week all of our plugins already supported the v6 api, except typecheck (which released support yesterday) and react-transform, which should be updated this week

@quicksnap
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I still am unsure of the best way to handle something like a migration guide. This repo moves pretty fast, and I feel that's part of its value.

If we do some work on reorganizing some things, and guard against unnecessary refactoring, tracking upstream changes shouldn't be terribly hard.

@quicksnap
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@justingreenberg that's good news with babel! Worth the wait, then..

@bdefore
Copy link
Collaborator

bdefore commented Dec 2, 2015

I'm curious if anyone who was interested in versioning has could have a look into #626 as solving these needs. It's along the lines of consolidating parts of this project into a library. @erikras @justingreenberg @quicksnap

@quicksnap
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I'll try and take a look sometime this week--just been busy with work and unable to look at large changes.

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

6 participants