-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 407
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
next steps: 1.15.0 versus 1.14.2 #540
Comments
i suggest creating a 1.14.x branch just for the record even if nothing more ends up pushed to it. |
Yes, a 1.14.x branch would likely be useful. It's what's been done in the past. |
I had some small changes that might be good to merge to master and include in a 1.14.x branch from there rather than the 1.14.1 tag. In the meantime, it may also be good to listen for 1.14.1 feedback for a week or so. It wouldn't need to hold up making PRs for 1.15. |
FYI: In light of #557, we will have to consider a 1.14.2 release. |
1.14.2 is released -- once we've attached the release notes I'll post about it publicly. |
Thanks, Erik, for doing the release. I expect in the age of Scala Steward we probably get a lot of downstream projects running a release quicker than in years previous. |
dbaeb80 broke binary compatibility by making `BooleanOperators` private, this does not match the plan discussed in typelevel#540: > The 1.15.x series will preserve binary-compatibility with 1.14.0 but is expected to break source-compatibility (e.g. removing the implicit keyword from some definitions) This commit implements that: BooleanOperators is public again but is also made non-implicit.
First, some background:
implicit
keyword from some definitions)Now that 1.14.1 is out, @ashawley and I were discussing next steps. My proposal is that we start merging PRs intended for 1.15.x to
master
. If we don't encounter major bugs in 1.14.1 I'd prefer not to have to do a 1.14.2 release and go right to 1.15.0. If we do need 1.14.2, we can create a1.14.x
branch off of the1.14.1
tag at that time and go from there.How does that sound? Any objections? Am I missing anything?
cc @SethTisue @ashawley et al.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: