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

twig-bridge should also be forced to 2.8 to avoid #8119 #8662

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

nickveenhof
Copy link
Contributor

@nickveenhof nickveenhof commented Apr 9, 2020

closes #8119

Please be sure you are submitting this against the staging branch.

Q A
Bug fix? Y
New feature? N
Automated tests included? N
Related user documentation PR URL N/A
Related developer documentation PR URL N/A
Issues addressed (#s or URLs) #8119
BC breaks? N
Deprecations? N

Description:

twig-bridge should also be forced to 2.8 to avoid #8119. Some dependency resolution resolves to twig-bridge v3.0.9 in the current develop branch. We need the 2.8 branch for all dependencies to be compatible.

Steps to reproduce the bug:

  1. composer install causes twig-bridge 3.0.9
  2. console cache:clear

Steps to test this PR:

  1. run composer install

List deprecations along with the new alternative:

  1. /
  2. /

List backwards compatibility breaks:

  1. /
  2. /

twig-bridge should also be forced to 2.8 to avoid mautic#8119. Some dependency resolution resolves to twig-bridge v3.0.9 in the current develop branch. We need the 2.8 branch for all dependencies to be compatible.
@npracht npracht added bug Issues or PR's relating to bugs Triage M2/M3 labels Apr 9, 2020
@npracht
Copy link
Member

npracht commented Apr 9, 2020

Hi @nickveenhof ! We won't merge anything extra in 2.x series. Is this issue still existing in M3 branch --> https://github.com/mautic/mautic/tree/3.x

If it persists on M3, please rebase on that branch.

You can more information on how to do all of that on this blog post "Getting you PR ready for Mautic 3".

@nickveenhof
Copy link
Contributor Author

If 2.x is still supported, I do think it should be merged. Why wouldn't we still support 2.x if 3.x isn't released yet?

@npracht
Copy link
Member

npracht commented Apr 9, 2020

Hi @nickveenhof !
No 3.0.0 is only in beta until now. We have decided to focus on 3.0.0 first before any extra release on 2.x series.

If you test on 3.x branch and it is not reproduced. We will consider adding it to a future release of 2.x series, but after launch of 3.0.0.

@nickveenhof
Copy link
Contributor Author

That makes sense! Thx! It is not reproducable on 3.x given that all the dependencies are changed there :).

@npracht
Copy link
Member

npracht commented Apr 9, 2020

Thanks to you !

@npracht npracht added this to the 2.x milestone Apr 9, 2020
@npracht npracht added the ready-to-test PR's that are ready to test label Apr 9, 2020
@RCheesley RCheesley removed this from the 2.x milestone Jun 25, 2020
@RCheesley RCheesley closed this Jul 23, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Issues or PR's relating to bugs ready-to-test PR's that are ready to test
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Attempted to call an undefined method named "getLine"
3 participants