-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14
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
Tagging (again) #73
Comments
IMO both projects (bindings & docker) could use smth "non-semantic", e.g.
Though one'd have to check with PyPI's/ |
Pypi only accept SemVer so that is what we're stuck with. The best we can do that gives a sane behavior with fixed patch release would be to use post releases: |
I did not know about Pypi enforcing semver which is a binding constraint here. Another solution would be that this project has its own pace and version numbers with the usual semver conventions, bumping the patch, minor, major versions based on changes on the bindings code itself. Then we'd simply provide a way for users to get the upstream version with some function/command. This would add an indirection to reference the upstream version but would also clearly separate concerns. Also probably we'd be fine if mostly the latest pyvroom version provides bindings for the lastest vroom version, which is what most users would expect I guess. |
It is not going to be a perfect fit no matter what we choose. Unless anyone object, I will continue to use patch-version for updates, and reserver major nad minor as compatabillity layers to upstream vroom. |
Back in #22 I suggested a tagging scheme that would align version numbers with the upstream code to make life easier for users. This was based on our experience with
vroom-docker
which is a much thinner wrapper. But maybe this does not work too well here: since the python logic for the bindings is quite evolved, this project could also have it's own changes (major or minor) and patches.An example of this is #71 where the previous
1.13.0
was aligned with upstreamv1.13.0
, but now1.13.1
is not any more as there is not patch version upstream. On the other hand it's mandatory to tag the fix there. And if we were in need to issue av1.13.1
upstream, that would become even more confusing.My point here is what I thought would be a simple(r) tagging scheme will probably end up being quite limiting. Any opinions here?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: