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

Bump 1.6.0 #68

Closed
nezed opened this issue Jun 21, 2017 · 10 comments
Closed

Bump 1.6.0 #68

nezed opened this issue Jun 21, 2017 · 10 comments

Comments

@nezed
Copy link

nezed commented Jun 21, 2017

Changelog:

@bouzlibop
Copy link

Are there any plans on when it can be released?

@bouzlibop
Copy link

^ cc @mjackson

@mjackson
Copy link
Member

I'll probably do it this week, but it won't have the queries prop. That code still needs some work.

@bouzlibop
Copy link

Awesome, thanks! :)

@mjackson
Copy link
Member

Done! Just published the new release as version 1.6.0 https://github.com/ReactTraining/react-media/releases/tag/v1.6.0

Enjoy :)

@7rulnik
Copy link

7rulnik commented Jul 11, 2017

@mjackson what work you talking about? Can you describe it in new issue?

@mjackson
Copy link
Member

@7rulnik The code accepted both the query and the queries prop, but it wasn't clear what would happen if both props were given. The way the code was written, the query prop would always take precedence. Instead, I'd rather just cut a 2.0 release that accepts only a queries prop. Then, if you only have a single query, just use one.

@VinSpee
Copy link
Contributor

VinSpee commented Jul 12, 2017

@mjackson open to doing that soon? I'm happy to PR the change.

@mjackson
Copy link
Member

@VinSpee Yes, I'd like to do it soon. And my apologies for removing the commits you previously made. I wanted to cut another 1.x release with the prop-types dep so people could get rid of the warnings, but I didn't want to release with both props because it was messy. I think it'd be easier to cut a 2.x release and just change the API in a backwards-incompat way. I'll open a new issue that describes the API I'd like to see.

@mjackson
Copy link
Member

Let's follow up in #69

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants