[Transitions] Increase minimal version of react-transition-group to 2.5.3

[wilcoschoneveld]

• I have followed (at least) the PR section of the contributing guide.

I want to update react-transition-group to version 2.5.3 because of a fix for setState while unmounting.

I don't think there are any breaking changes in the version history and I tested the documentation locally, all seems fine.

[wilcoschoneveld]

Hmm I just realized that with using material-ui in my project yarn already uses 2.5.3. So the issue is something else. Anyway wouldn't hurt to update the package I think.

[oliviertassinari]

@wilcoschoneveld Thanks, I have rebased on the next branch

[mbrookes]

Why force the use of the latest version? As a rule we should support the minimum version of a package (and above) that works with Material-UI.

[eps1lon]

Depends on the package. Usually it's better to propagate patches downstream. This way people can rely on bigger packages to vet updates and just have to update a single package to get improvements for various packages.

Whatever we decide on we should be consistent. The current state of having updated versions in the lockfile and earlier versions in the package.json quite dangerous. We might use features of a package introduced in 2.7.0 which is used via lockfile. But if we declare ^2.6.0 in the package.json then this is technically not correct. Any user installing our package might still be using 2.6.0 due to another dependency and now our package fails. Debugging those issues can be very frustrating.

[oliviertassinari]

@mbrookes Hard tradeoff. One could argue that it's better to have a site working and slow than not working, the version also has a bundle size reduction pull request by @TrySound.

[oliviertassinari]

So far, the strategy has been to only update the dependency version when we need it (new features or bug fixes)

[joshwooding]

It might be worth adding that the fix above was applied in 2.5.1

[oliviertassinari]

Correct and 2.5.3 contains the bundle size reduction.

[mbrookes]

I see there was just a similar discussion here: #14602 (review), so sorry for the distraction; but glad to know we're all on the same page.