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

[WIP] Release 2.0.5 #1778

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from
Closed

[WIP] Release 2.0.5 #1778

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

VeskeR
Copy link
Contributor

@VeskeR VeskeR commented May 29, 2024

Resolves https://ably.atlassian.net/browse/ECO-4812 (Stable release for reacts hooks)

I think it's better to include documentation changes for removing the release candidate tag for react hooks in this release PR. This way, we avoid a temporary state in the GitHub repo where we claim they are production-ready, but we have not yet released an actual latest breaking change.
Please see this commit for changes for react hook docs.

@@ -2,6 +2,11 @@

This contains only the most important and/or user-facing changes; for a full changelog, see the commit history.

## [2.0.5](https://github.com/ably/ably-js/tree/2.0.5) (#TODO REPLACE WITH RELEVANT DATE)
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@ttypic on a standup you mentioned you would like to move react hooks to the production-ready status in the next minor release. Did you literally mean minor as in ably-js 2.1.0 release, or this 2.0.5 would be fine?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we should make it 2.1.0 first of all because of #1762, we introduced new recoveryKeyStorageName option, I think in semantic versioning it should be treated as minor change

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

we should make it 2.1.0 first of all because of #1762, we introduced new recoveryKeyStorageName option

Oh, true. I remember when I was looking at that PR, I thought the same thing: it would make us bump the minor version in the next release. I didn't go through all the changes for the changelog in this PR, so I initially left it as 2.0.5. But yeah, 2.1.0 will definitely be the version we go with.

Will close this PR and open a 2.1.0 one.

@VeskeR
Copy link
Contributor Author

VeskeR commented Jun 3, 2024

Closing in favour of #1783

@VeskeR VeskeR closed this Jun 3, 2024
@VeskeR VeskeR deleted the release/2.0.5 branch June 3, 2024 05:39
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants