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

Please consider bumping to 1.0 #200

Closed
nc7s opened this issue Jul 14, 2023 · 4 comments · Fixed by #277
Closed

Please consider bumping to 1.0 #200

nc7s opened this issue Jul 14, 2023 · 4 comments · Fixed by #277
Labels
C-question Category: Further information is requested

Comments

@nc7s
Copy link
Contributor

nc7s commented Jul 14, 2023

The reasoning is twofold.

First, I maintain the sd package in Debian. A Debian Developer recently filed a bug due to its version being "too low" to keep the monotonically increasing version constraint of the Debian archive. There was once another sd package in Debian, which as the bug stated had a highest version of 0.74.

Now I can use an epoch (basically adding 1: to the usual semver, so it becomes 1:0.7.6 for instance, which is higher than the implicit initial 0:), or rename the package to something else, like rust-sd. But using epoch means stable-updates and renaming means going through the NEW queue again, and I'm lazy :P

Second, this project seems mature enough, the last release on crates.io dates back to August 2020. It definitely deserves a 1.0 mark.

@CosmicHorrorDev
Copy link
Collaborator

Second, this project seems mature enough, the last release on crates.io dates back to August 2020. It definitely deserves a 1.0 mark.

I would be up for bumping to 1.0 sometime soon, but the next release will be a breaking release, and I'm not sure if that will be the only breaking release coming soon

@nc7s
Copy link
Contributor Author

nc7s commented Jul 14, 2023

Not sure because? I can do some coding if appropriate.

@CosmicHorrorDev
Copy link
Collaborator

Mostly because I only recently took over maintenance, so there may be issues down the line that will require a breaking change to deal with. That being said I think things are stable enough to warrant 1.0 here soon, and we can just bump to 2.0 if more breaking changes are needed later

@nc7s
Copy link
Contributor Author

nc7s commented Jul 14, 2023

Great, tag me anytime when in need of PRs ;)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
C-question Category: Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants