Prepare v2.0.0

[SVilgelm]

Changed the minimum version, In order to fix the compatibility issues of v1.2.2 action and v1.28.3 lint.
Add compatibility section in README.md

Fixes #39 #37

After merging this PR we need to raise 1.2.3 release and remove 1.2.2 release (deprecate it)

[SVilgelm]

@sayboras any thoughts?

[sayboras]

not sure if this is still considered as semantic versioning.

The change we made in 1.2.2 is considered as breaking, so having restriction on patch version (e.g. v1.2.3) is not considered in my opinion as backward compatible.

[SVilgelm]

Is 1.3.0 good option?
Or we should go with 2.0.0?

[sayboras]

I personally think 2.0.0 beter. Not sure what others think.

[sayboras]

@sayboras any thoughts?

@SVilgelm just want to boucing idea here. One alternative to fix this one, and make release backward compatible for patch version is to check golangci-lint version, and decide if we need to append the path-prefix or not. What do you think ?

[SVilgelm]

@sayboras hmmm, I would prefer to release v2 instead of adding such logic, I don't see any problems with removing 1.2.2 release and releasing it as 2.0.0
so someone will need to get back to v1.2.1, someone will just upgrade to v2

My concern here is if we will add such logic once, then what will stop us to do this again and again? and then we will have lots of if..else blocks

let's do it right now

[sayboras]

@sayboras hmmm, I would prefer to release v2 instead of adding such logic, I don't see any problems with removing 1.2.2 release and releasing it as 2.0.0
so someone will need to get back to v1.2.1, someone will just upgrade to v2

My concern here is if we will add such logic once, then what will stop us to do this again and again? and then we will have lots of if..else blocks

let's do it right now

Yeah, I don't like that a lot of if else either, makes the code ugly to read and maintain.

v2.0.0 sounds good to me. But will v1.x still be under support? golangci-lint supports last two releases I think

[sayboras]

LGTM 💯

[denis-tingaikin]

Also, this PR closes this #38 :)

[SVilgelm]

Also, this PR closes this #38 :)

It's not closes, using a patch part of version nis still not allowed, or I did not understand the problem :)