Skip to content

docs: add note about version compatibility #246

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

Merged

Conversation

nfriend
Copy link
Contributor

@nfriend nfriend commented Jun 17, 2021

What does this PR do?

Adds a note about which versions of GitLab are supported by this plugin, and also adds a note about a specific breaking change in GitLab 14.0.

@nfriend
Copy link
Contributor Author

nfriend commented Jun 17, 2021

@keplersj @travi Can you please review this proposed compatibility guideline? 🙏

For context, some of the users of this plugin are seeing errors due to using an unsupported version of GitLab: #239.

Let me know if this seems reasonable (and consistent with other semantic-release plugins).

@travi
Copy link
Member

travi commented Jun 17, 2021

this looks good, although i am a little confused by the link to the issue. it sounds like you are referring to the later comment specifically about the v14 change. there is also a mention of v11 support in that thread and this seems to contradict with entertaining the PR to continue enabling v11 support beyond EOL. i'm supportive of this language and dropping support of gitlab versions that are EOL, but just want to make sure that aligns with what we decide to do with that PR. do we intend to close that PR as part of this?

Copy link
Member

@travi travi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

i like this messaging, but lets resolve the question about v11 before merging

@nfriend
Copy link
Contributor Author

nfriend commented Jun 22, 2021

here is also a mention of v11 support in that thread and this seems to contradict with entertaining the PR to continue enabling v11 support beyond EOL.

@travi Sorry, yes, that is a little confusing - I should have explained in more detail. Since #240 was already in motion, and since it's a forwards-compatible change, I thought we could make an exception (especially since support for v11 just ended) and get this fix merged. But going forward, we wouldn't entertain any v11-specific fixes.

The v14 breaking change is a separate issue, but I thought I'd address it in the same section since they're both related to the version of the GitLab instance.

@travi
Copy link
Member

travi commented Jun 23, 2021

I thought we could make an exception (especially since support for v11 just ended) and get this fix merged. But going forward, we wouldn't entertain any v11-specific fixes.

i think that is fair if that ends up working out. it seems low maintenance if it does merge, but i think it would also be reasonable if it didnt merge. you can make the call on that piece.

whether dropping support for gitlab versions constitutes a breaking change or not is something we should also define sometime. i lean toward yes, but that would mean taking steps at the appropriate times to publish the breaking change. it may make sense to hold off until a change is made that is actually incompatible with an older version, but i wouldnt want to carry the burden of testing against end-of-life versions to know when that happens. thats the balance that makes me hesitate slightly about merging something to support a version that is already (even if only recently) EOL, since it becomes questionable when it is safe to remove vs keeping it around forever for the sake of being uncertain.

all of that is not to convince you to go one way or another, but rather just to share some of the thoughts on my mind around the topic.

@nfriend
Copy link
Contributor Author

nfriend commented Jun 29, 2021

@travi Thanks for your thoughts!

whether dropping support for gitlab versions constitutes a breaking change or not is something we should also define sometime. i lean toward yes, but that would mean taking steps at the appropriate times to publish the breaking change.

I agree, I think a breaking change would make the most sense in that scenario.

thats the balance that makes me hesitate slightly about merging something to support a version that is already (even if only recently) EOL, since it becomes questionable when it is safe to remove vs keeping it around forever for the sake of being uncertain.

Thanks for this input! That makes a lot of sense. I'm now leaning toward closing #240 to avoid the maintenance burden you mentioned above.


Is there anything else you'd like to see outlined in this docs update? Or are you okay if I merge this in its current state?

@travi
Copy link
Member

travi commented Jun 29, 2021

Is there anything else you'd like to see outlined in this docs update? Or are you okay if I merge this in its current state?

this seems great for this stage. thanks for putting this together!

@nfriend nfriend merged commit ef42523 into semantic-release:master Jun 29, 2021
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Aug 4, 2021

🎉 This PR is included in version 6.2.2 🎉

The release is available on:

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants