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

v3.5.0 release plan #966

Open
2 of 12 tasks
yzhang-gh opened this issue Jun 20, 2021 · 13 comments
Open
2 of 12 tasks

v3.5.0 release plan #966

yzhang-gh opened this issue Jun 20, 2021 · 13 comments
Assignees
Labels
Issue: Epic Mega thread (plan) which may involve features, bugs, and tasks.
Milestone

Comments

@yzhang-gh
Copy link
Owner

yzhang-gh commented Jun 20, 2021

These work items are blocking the release.

Must resolve

Can defer

@yzhang-gh yzhang-gh added the Issue: Task Not a bug. Even not a new feature. But we really need to do something. label Jun 20, 2021
@yzhang-gh yzhang-gh self-assigned this Jun 20, 2021
@Lemmingh Lemmingh added this to the v3.5.0 milestone Jun 20, 2021
@Lemmingh
Copy link
Collaborator

FYI

CommonMark 0.30 got released a few minutes ago, with mainly clarifications, and subtle changes to boundary conditions.

I think it will not affect our plan for now.

@Lemmingh Lemmingh pinned this issue Jul 9, 2021
@Lemmingh Lemmingh added Issue: Epic Mega thread (plan) which may involve features, bugs, and tasks. and removed Issue: Task Not a bug. Even not a new feature. But we really need to do something. labels Sep 26, 2021
@yzhang-gh
Copy link
Owner Author

I was wondering whether we should plan a patch release v3.4.1 (given that I won't have enough time in the next two months).

We can create a new branch and cherry-pick some of the fixes that are not entangled with the architecture changes.

@Lemmingh
Copy link
Collaborator

Yeah. #903 has blocked us for nearly one year.

We now have 56 commits since v3.4.0 (c50fe84), most of which are mild. Cherry-pick might be too heavy. Instead, we can just revert a few dangerous changes on a new branch. I'll investigate further and give you an answer this weekend.

@yzhang-gh
Copy link
Owner Author

That will be super helpful. Don't hurry and please take your time.

@Lemmingh
Copy link
Collaborator

Only two appear troublesome.

How do you like the plan?

@yzhang-gh
Copy link
Owner Author

Looks good to me 👍 as long as we are not introducing breaking changes (in a patch release).

@Lemmingh
Copy link
Collaborator

I'll comment here when finishing my part.

@yzhang-gh
Copy link
Owner Author

@Lemmingh I have created a patch branch and released v3.4.2. (It has been more than a year since the last update.)

Apparently now there is no easy way to merge the two branches (patch and master). I have tested locally that rebasing master on the patch is okay (the history is kept linear and the duplicated commits are auto eliminated), while we only need to manually deal with conflicts on package(-lock).json. The drawback is it will affect your local branches (need a merge commit).

Or you may have some better ideas?

@Lemmingh
Copy link
Collaborator

ideas?

Tag and keep it forever.

It's a common pattern in large projects to create a branch for each x.y release. As part of maintenance, critical changes in the main branch will be backported as x.y.z patches.

I guess we didn't have such practice because we deprecate old releases as soon as a new version comes out. It sounds not a conflict to me to make release-branches occasionally and have a forward-only life cycle policy meanwhile.

@yzhang-gh
Copy link
Owner Author

Makes sense. Then I am going to simply cherry-pick the "version number and changelog commit" into the master branch.

@Lemmingh
Copy link
Collaborator

Not sure if I understand you. Do you refer to CHANGELOG.md?

@yzhang-gh
Copy link
Owner Author

Yes (and also the version in package.json)

@Lemmingh
Copy link
Collaborator

I guess we can bump the version of master to 3.5.0, and copy the CHANGELOG.md. Just need to clarify its source in the commit message.

It sounds strange to have a version number that actually doesn't reflect the content.


I thought about:

📝 Update CHANGELOG

From f791314074e92503249b1688c4fa97e28d8272ac
🔧 Bump version to 3.5.0

@yzhang-gh yzhang-gh unpinned this issue Jan 13, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Issue: Epic Mega thread (plan) which may involve features, bugs, and tasks.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants