docs(update): Fix a typo and remove unneeded statement #7152
Conversation
- I have explicitly stated how caret dependencies below 1.0.0 behave differently. Before, this information had to be inferred from the examples. - Fixed a typo
|
Is there a reason the Tilde section is sandwiched between the two Caret sections? |
| equivalent to `>=1.1.1 <1.2.0`. So the highest-sorting version that satisfies | ||
| `~1.1.1` is used, which is `1.1.2`. | ||
|
|
||
| #### Caret Dependencies below 1.0.0 | ||
|
|
||
| Suppose `app` has a caret dependency on a version below `1.0.0`, for example: | ||
| Caret dependencies below 1.0.0 consider minor versions to be breaking changes. Suppose `app` has a caret dependency on a version below `1.0.0`, for example: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this isn't accurate. In vX.Y.Z, X is major, Y minor, Z patch - but it's the same in v0.X.Y and v0.0.X.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure what you mean by "it's the same in..." but I've since learned how what I said was wrong. This is my current understanding: https://stackoverflow.com/a/77837308/61624 If that's correct, I can try to reword this PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, that SO post is identical to my previous comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've decided to just revert this line for now.
What you think about integrating that StackOverflow post into the example section of the documentation?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure how valuable it would be; new packages start at 1.0.0 by default, and https://semver.npmjs.com exists, so in practice most people don't run into the v0 distinction.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, I meant integrating the StackOverflow post into the npmjs example section down to the subdependencies section, not just the details about ^ below 1.0.0.
https://semver.npmjs.com/ exists, so in practice most people don't run into the v0 distinction.
Sorry again, I'm not seeing the connection.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Starting at v1 is why most people don’t run into the v0 semantics.
I’m not sure which part you’re referring to in the SO post.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As described by this comment, I'm going to resolve this and continue the conversation elsewhere.
DanKaplanSES
changed the title
|
@ljharb I've reduced the scope of this PR to typo fixes. Regarding our v0 conversation, if it's all right by you, I'll submit a separate PR for it because:
Thanks! |
wraithgar
changed the title
I have explicitly stated how caret dependencies below 1.0.0 behave differently. Before, this information had to be inferred from the examples.References