Revisiting multi-version naming #295
Replies: 1 comment
-
I understand the above issues and there might not be an easy solution... However, in the meantime, I propose the following approach: Switcher behaviorAs it is right now. This means, that we just keep showing Access to all released versionsAfter More explanationsWhat I am saying is basically that now the following folder structure could be accepted:
The switcher, however, would only show the following entries
Changes to be implemented
Benefits
Downside
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
🐞 The problem
The multi-version logic of our actions only consider
<MAJOR>.<MINOR>
versions. This versions is assumed to be always the latest patch release for that major and minor. Thus, the multi-version shows values like the following ones:As per #217, we would like to handle pre-releases. These releases include suffixes like
alpha
,beta
andrc
. This feature introduces some corner pointed out by @greschd, for example:As per our internal discussion, it may be more convenient to follow pure semantic versioning when listing out the versions in the drop-down selector for the multi-version. This is more explicit:
Right now, the version for the multi-version is extracted from the major and minor numbers of the tag
vX.Y.Z
. If we want to support suffixes, we also need to come up with an agreement on how to include those in the tags.Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions