Skip to content

fix: remove reference to previous version being level 0.1#1359

Merged
zachariahcox merged 2 commits intomainfrom
zachariahcox-patch-1
May 19, 2025
Merged

fix: remove reference to previous version being level 0.1#1359
zachariahcox merged 2 commits intomainfrom
zachariahcox-patch-1

Conversation

@zachariahcox
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@zachariahcox zachariahcox commented Apr 29, 2025

This pull request removes outdated explanatory notes from the levels.md documentation file to streamline and clarify the content.

I think we should remove this reference to 0.1 being the "previous version."
From context it may be that "previous version" is currently encoded somewhere to always be 0.1.
Edit: found it and deleted it.

For reference, I was poking around here: https://slsa.dev/spec/v1.1/levels

It has been a full release, so I think it is also fine to remove the entire note.

Signed-off-by: Zachariah Cox <zachariahcox@gmail.com>
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pull Request Overview

This PR removes an outdated explanatory note from the levels.md documentation, streamlining the content and eliminating references to the previous version.

  • Removed a block of commented-out text referencing an outdated specification note.

@netlify
Copy link
Copy Markdown

netlify Bot commented Apr 29, 2025

Deploy Preview for slsa ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 619f2e5
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/slsa/deploys/6811329f5823c20008c21af1
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-1359--slsa.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

Signed-off-by: Zachariah Cox <zachariahcox@gmail.com>
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@arewm arewm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do you want to remove this or to change the previous version to be 1.0? We are not removing the link but the target of the link ... unless nothing was using this target.

@zachariahcox
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

I think those are per file and that appeared to be the only use.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@arewm arewm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't necessarily have a problem with this change. Another option could be to modify the removed block to say

Note: A [previous version] of the specification

The question that comes to mind is "how long do we need to start calling out differences between v0.1/2 and the current version?" This was a big change... but do SLSA consumers need to be reminded of them?

The message about a future source track is still relevant.

I ended up approving it because this content is still visible in the 1.0 spec pages.

@lehors
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

lehors commented Apr 30, 2025

Another option could be to modify the removed block to say

Note: A [previous version] of the specification

I had the same idea and think that would be a better way to address the issue on the mere basis that we're now modifying a published document which should be left alone as much as possible, although obviously we're not talking about a significant change.

@lehors
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

lehors commented Apr 30, 2025

I think those are per file and that appeared to be the only use.

For sure.

@TomHennen
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

How are we feeling about this change? Is it ready to merge or is there a bit more work to do?

@arewm
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

arewm commented May 5, 2025

Since we are modifying a published version, can we keep the reference in but not use the previous version? I think that would just be a one-word change to

> Note: A [previous version] of the specification used a single unnamed track,

@zachariahcox
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

zachariahcox commented May 16, 2025

@arewm 's idea is way better. Let's do that!

EDIT: SO, I went to go do this. I think that whole section is there to explain the gap between 0.1 and 1.0. We don't actually need to do that between 1.0 and 1.1, so I think it does still make sense to remove it.

@github-project-automation github-project-automation Bot moved this from 🆕 New to ✅ Done in Issue triage May 16, 2025
@zachariahcox zachariahcox reopened this May 16, 2025
Comment thread docs/spec/v1.1/levels.md

> Note: The [previous version] of the specification used a single unnamed track,
> SLSA 1–4. For version 1.0, the Source aspects were removed to focus on the
> Build track. A Source track may be added in [future versions].
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

so, we could just remove the "The" and replace with "A" here.

That would still leave a kind of non-sequitur comment about the differences between 0.1 and 1.0.

@zachariahcox zachariahcox merged commit bff71c9 into main May 19, 2025
8 checks passed
@zachariahcox zachariahcox deleted the zachariahcox-patch-1 branch May 19, 2025 13:26
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

Status: ✅ Done

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants