Remove upgrade steps for old, unsupported releases #162
Conversation
hvelarde
force-pushed
the
hvelarde-cleanup
branch
from
5691f5e to
d940ad8
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not a huge fan or removing old upgradeSteps and not creating a major version (like 3.x). I know we have:
2.13b4 (unreleased)
.. Warning::
Upgrading from versions below 2.3 is no longer supported.
You must upgrade at least to version 2.3 before upgrading to this release.
But suppose I'm in 2.x, then upgrade to 2.13 final when it's released: this is a normal thought of upgrading, but since I didn't upgrade to 2.13b3 specifically now I have a broken installation.
|
@idgserpro I'm not a huge fan of maintaining old code in add-ons because it complicates our lives. I have no problem bumping a major version if you feel more comfortable with that. |
hvelarde
force-pushed
the
hvelarde-cleanup
branch
from
d940ad8 to
daf44c1
Compare
| @@ -3,8 +3,8 @@ Changelog | |||
|
|
|||
| There's a frood who really knows where his towel is. | |||
|
|
|||
| 2.13b4 (unreleased) | |||
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | |||
| 3.0b1 (unreleased) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@idgserpro done! do you mind if I remove now upgrade steps older than 2 years?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since it's a 3.x release, I see no problem with that. But you may need to create a 2.x branch and be careful about upgradeSteps numbering like we had in a (portuguese) discussion in plonegovbr/brasil.gov.portal#471 (review)
That's why I prefer not to remove old upgradeSteps. It gives that feeling of removing and "cleaning" the package but creates another problems.
I believe our both approaches aren't wrong, it's just a matter of preference of which problems you want to live with.
I know that. See, I'm not against removing it, specially because you're the original maintainers of this project, and it's up to you to decide how to use your resources. But try to imagine the scenario I pointed out in #162 (review): Imagine it's you upgrading from 2.x to 2.13 (final), everything is broken and after some researching you get to know that you need to upgrade first to 2.13b3 before upgrading to 2.13... such a MINOR change (semver nomenclature) shouldn't break like that. But if it's a MAJOR change, at least some breakage is expected and if someone didn't read the changelog before upgrading from 2.x to 3.x, I'm sorry, it's their fault. |
|
no, I'm not going to maintain any 2.x branch after this bump as it makes no sense. I can create it, just because is the right thing to do, but I'm not going to touch it at all. |
Version 2.2 is now 3-years old and we are not going to maintain it.
hvelarde
force-pushed
the
hvelarde-cleanup
branch
from
daf44c1 to
6e905b1
Compare
|
@idgserpro do you agree? please approve. |
|
So, with a branch 2.x, if needed, a new upgradeStep will be 3011? 9 upgradeSteps at most since the 3.x package will begin with 3020? |
|
I think add-ons are different from projects like IDG: as mentioned in other place, we don't want to maintain a 2.x branch because it just don't make sense. we are bumping the major release just to inform that we're breaking things. |
|
Well, a 2.x branch can be created in the future if if needed, a commit before this one. |
|
can you approve now? ;) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I approve the code, but still think it's a matter of preference removing this stuff or not as said in https://github.com/collective/sc.social.like/pull/162/files#r193405091.
|
It's high time this project was cleaned up a bit and bumped to a newer major version. It's fine if you want to keep old compat code to ease upgrade between major Plone versions... but the project as it exists today has several bugs that should be fixed. |
Version 2.2 is now 3-years old and we are not going to maintain it.