-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 381
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
runtime-1100 release prep #1387
Conversation
Minimum allowed line rate is |
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ | |||
[package] | |||
name = "astar-runtime" | |||
version = "5.45.0" | |||
version = "5.46.0" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we can remove versioning from runtime now
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why?
Also, perhaps a topic for another PR/discussion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Because we don't need it. How do we bump it anyway
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Right now it looks like it's connected to client release
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The versions are still "aligned", that's true, but they are not connected.
The bump is in respect to the crate level, same as until now I guess?
Breaking changes or new major updates would entail major version bump, otherwise minor or patch where appropriate.
Just my opinion - but wouldn't it be weird to release new versions of a "crate", while keeping the crate version same?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Or we can align it with spec. 1.10.0
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To be fair, it would have to be 1.11.0
then 🙂. The last two digits are patch version, the first two (or more) are a combination of major/minor version.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm in, we can use 1.11.0
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually, I meant to write 11.0.0
🤦 . But let's keep in mind that we're on 5.x.y
now, and going back to 1
as major version would be weird.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Given that our runtime release format is XXYY, what would the version be for a minor runtime release like 1101? Would it be 11.1.0
? I assume the patch digit would always remain 0 in that case
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
Release prep for
runtime-1100
release.