Skip to content

Update required cloud-core version#790

Merged
jdpedrie merged 1 commit intogoogleapis:masterfrom
jdpedrie:cloud-core-dep
Dec 14, 2017
Merged

Update required cloud-core version#790
jdpedrie merged 1 commit intogoogleapis:masterfrom
jdpedrie:cloud-core-dep

Conversation

@jdpedrie
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Closes #782. Replaces #786.

Question for the group: Would it be useful to script automated requirement bumps into the release process? i.e. when a new release of cloud-core is created, should we automatically update the requirement in all packages depending on cloud-core?

@jdpedrie jdpedrie requested a review from dwsupplee as a code owner December 13, 2017 19:02
@googlebot googlebot added the cla: yes This human has signed the Contributor License Agreement. label Dec 13, 2017
@michaelbausor
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

My initial thought is yes. cloud-core is GA, so we should never introduce breaking changes, and therefore there seems to be no downside in requiring the version to be updated. Is there any scenario where a user might need to depend on an old version of cloud-core?

@chingor13
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

We do have the Batch components in there which are experimental.

@dwsupplee
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I like the safety of always requiring the latest code. Users utilizing experimental components should be aware of the fact they may need to upgrade, so it seems like a fair trade off.

@jdpedrie
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Sounds good. I'll work on that soon and submit it in a separate pull request.

@jdpedrie jdpedrie merged commit 930c2d8 into googleapis:master Dec 14, 2017
@jdpedrie jdpedrie deleted the cloud-core-dep branch December 14, 2017 14:53
@jdpedrie jdpedrie mentioned this pull request Dec 15, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

cla: yes This human has signed the Contributor License Agreement.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants