-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.6k
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
Versions: let users define algorithm to define stable
#11183
Comments
We've also talked about surfacing this as an automation rule, which would be a good home for showing the user and sort of configuration around latest/stable versions. |
So good to see discussion about this ❤️ And it would be fantastic to address #5319 indeed. One thing that came to mind recently is that, in some cases, I'd love to even get rid of The reason is that, for users that are not used to the RTD terminology, reading (Comes from kedro-org/kedro#3741 (comment)) |
In case you want to try this approach and provide feedback, you can
I haven't tested this, but I think it could work for your use case. |
If we wanted to add an option for turning off our implicit I'm wondering if that, combined with surfacing I can see how this might be a lot refactoring, but still do think we should be more flexible with the stable version feature. We have talked about some complicated ways of achieving this -- surfacing our implicit rules as automation rules namely -- that are maybe a good end goal but don't necessarily need to be where we start with this either. |
You mean #5319 right? Would love to see it happening! |
Yeah, I suppose this issue is more about adding more algorithms besides semver. #5319 is more what I've been thinking here, though the idea of surfacing implicit rules as explicit rules can be skipped -- that's just a nice to have feature for later. I'm putting this one on our discussion list so we can try to come up with a plan and prioritize this, I'd also love to see this control in automation rules. |
I think it will be a huge refactor anyways. We will need to add an |
I finally tried this #11183 (comment)
and seems to be working. And at this point I think I actually prefer |
With the introduction of "sorting algorithms" for the versions in the flyout, @stsewd suggested we could use these algorithms as well to determine the
stable
version. This would be a really good addition taking into account that our process to determinestable
is not clear to users and it's not possible to change it either.This would be a big refactor and I think there should be some discussions and planning before moving forward with this.
Reference #11069 (review)
Related:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: