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

Why is master version on 1.3.1 #1925

Closed
ccojocar opened this issue Nov 29, 2018 · 8 comments
Closed

Why is master version on 1.3.1 #1925

ccojocar opened this issue Nov 29, 2018 · 8 comments

Comments

@ccojocar
Copy link

Hey there and thank you for opening an issue!

Please help us keep the number of opened issues under control.

Do the checklist before filing an issue:

  • Is this something you can debug and fix? Send a pull request! Bug fixes and documentation fixes are welcome.
  • Have a usage question? Ask in our slack channel (see https://goa.design to join).

None of the above, create a bug report:

Make sure to add all the information needed to understand the bug so that someone can help. If the info is missing we'll add the 'Needs more information' label and close the issue until there is enough information.

Please fill the sections below:

Expected Behavior

I expect that the master version to be on 1.4.0 since this was already released. Any particular reason for keep the master on 1.3.1 in the version file?

Minor = 3

Actual Behavior

Steps to Reproduce the Problem (including complete and simple design if relevant)

Specifications

  • goa Version:
  • Platform (Linux/Windows etc.):
@klauspost
Copy link

klauspost commented Nov 30, 2018

Related: #1867

@raphael
Copy link
Member

raphael commented Dec 3, 2018

Yeah this is not a great state to be in. Things are getting even more complicated with the introduction of Go modules. The initial plan of making v2 the master branch does not work anymore since go get defaults to the v1 branch when using modules. I believe we'll have to introduce a new repository for v2 :( (because being able to use goa.design/goa as import path instead of github.com/goadesign/goa is something that's quite nice and would be good to keep). If that's the case then the question becomes what should the master branch become going forward? I believe we should reset master off of v1 and create an old-master branch for users that rely on it. Would love to hear your feedback on that plan @ccojocar @klauspost ...

@jtnord
Copy link

jtnord commented Jan 2, 2019

using go modules you can (and should) specify the tag /branch / sha you want so I do not see what impact this has with master being changed to be 1.4.0 and v2 work happening in a v2 branch?

@raphael
Copy link
Member

raphael commented Jan 9, 2019

The idea is to point goa.design/goa to v2 and github.com/goadesign/goa to v1. Today this works because goa.design/goa uses gopkg.in to redirect to v2. Go modules break this because go get does a local checkout of the v1 branch when getting goa.design/goa.

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Mar 10, 2019

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the wontfix label Mar 10, 2019
@raphael
Copy link
Member

raphael commented Mar 11, 2019

Thinking more about this, I think I agree with you @jtnord. Here is where we ended up after considering a number of alternatives and running these with members of the community, upon releasing v2:

  • Leave the gopkg.in redirect in place so that importing goa.design/go with Go modules support disabled imports branch v2.
  • Merge v2 into master and create a v2.0.0 release tag so that importing goa.design/goa with Go modules enabled works as long as the project that imports Goa uses v2.0.0 in its go.mod file.
  • Release future versions by creating tags off of master.
  • Merge master back into v2 when creating new releases - at least until we deprecate support for GOPATH.

Does that make sense to you @jtnord ?

@stale stale bot removed the wontfix label Mar 11, 2019
@jtnord
Copy link

jtnord commented Mar 19, 2019

sounds reasonable to me.

@raphael
Copy link
Member

raphael commented May 12, 2019

Issue moved to #1959

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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants