Skip to content

Conversation

@bwplotka
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

Copy link
Contributor

@jmichalek132 jmichalek132 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Small nit since you don't want to break combability with this release do we also want to revert the change from this pr #99?

LGTM otherwise.

@bwplotka
Copy link
Member Author

Small nit since you don't want to break combability with this release do we also want to revert the change from this pr #99?

With any release we ideally don't break compatibility, but we want and can break compatibility (we are 0.x version) if necessary. I believe metric-interval is worth it, but I reverted metric types as it's more surprising and unwanted potentially. WDYT? @jmichalek132

Signed-off-by: bwplotka <bwplotka@gmail.com>
@jmichalek132
Copy link
Contributor

Small nit since you don't want to break combability with this release do we also want to revert the change from this pr #99?

With any release we ideally don't break compatibility, but we want and can break compatibility (we are 0.x version) if necessary. I believe metric-interval is worth it, but I reverted metric types as it's more surprising and unwanted potentially. WDYT? @jmichalek132

Yeah I think this is closer to behavior people would want, and it's not as breaking as changing the name of the flag. Okay with me.

@bwplotka bwplotka merged commit f711a84 into main Oct 14, 2024
7 checks passed
@bwplotka bwplotka deleted the cut0.6.0 branch October 14, 2024 15:50
prateeknayak pushed a commit to prateeknayak/avalanche that referenced this pull request Jan 2, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants