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

1.0.0 release #21

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Sep 21, 2016
Merged

1.0.0 release #21

merged 3 commits into from Sep 21, 2016

Conversation

JeroenDeDauw
Copy link
Member

As far as I can tell this is all that is needed.

Fixes #20

Ping @mwjames

@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@

if ( !defined( 'MEDIAWIKI' ) ) die();

define( 'SCQ_VERSION', '0.4.1' );
define( 'SCQ_VERSION', '1.0' );
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we have been consistent with the versioning for most of the respo's (== 1.0.0).

Aside from this, after a quick (really quick ~ 30 sec.) look at the code I found that SCQ_QueryResult.php with its method addResult is not being used [0] which suggests dead code (or better a dead class).

So, given the state and quality of the code I'd go with a 0.5 but if you feel comfortable with the quality then go ahead.

[0] https://github.com/SemanticMediaWiki/SemanticCompoundQueries/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=addResult

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't agree that one should only go to 1.0 once internal quality reaches a certain threshold. SemVer wise it's about being ready to be used in production, which this extension has been for years.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Well, I'm aware of the Semver reading and as I pointed out do as you see fit. I don't have a big investment here but of course I'd like to see quality software being released and 1.0 would signal this and in my opinion this repo is not of the quality I'd like to promote.

@JeroenDeDauw JeroenDeDauw merged commit 16ef450 into master Sep 21, 2016
@JeroenDeDauw JeroenDeDauw deleted the rel100 branch September 21, 2016 04:19
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants