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

Should we treat 0.x.y version changes as major? #11

Closed
Hades32 opened this issue Jan 6, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #17 or #18
Closed

Should we treat 0.x.y version changes as major? #11

Hades32 opened this issue Jan 6, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #17 or #18
Assignees

Comments

@Hades32
Copy link

Hades32 commented Jan 6, 2022

The PR product-os/transformer-worker#494 updated a docker image from 0.18.1 to 0.19.0. NPM would consider this a major version change and the SemVer spec explicitly states that breaking changes might happen between 0.x releases.

Looking at this, I'm not sure if we need to change something or if this is a Renovate bug:

"groupName": "external-non-major",
"excludePackagePrefixes": ["@balena"],
"commitBody": "Change-type: patch",
"extends": ["schedule:weekends"],
"matchUpdateTypes": [
"minor",
"patch"
],
"automerge": true

@joshbwlng
Copy link
Contributor

@Hades32 It would still be a patch bump in our repos, but I guess what you're suggesting is not auto approving and merging. I honestly wasn't aware that the semver spec allows for breaking changes in minors. If that is the case I suspect we might should put these in a separate renovate group and require humans to approve these bumps.

@Hades32
Copy link
Author

Hades32 commented Jan 13, 2022

Yeah, it's a special case of 0.x.y versions. It also isn't implemented the same everywhere. NPM for example interprets 0.1 -> 0.2 as major and 0.1.1->0.1.2 as minor, whereas the spec makes no such guarantees for 0.x.y versions.

And yes, a manual approval is what I meant. TBH, there's still a chance that we would have missed that, but at least it would have been easier to find out what caused it

@joshbwlng joshbwlng linked a pull request Jan 18, 2022 that will close this issue
@ghost ghost closed this as completed in #17 Jan 18, 2022
@joshbwlng joshbwlng linked a pull request Jan 19, 2022 that will close this issue
This issue was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
2 participants