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

Changelog for v3 #116

Closed
kachkaev opened this issue Feb 21, 2022 · 5 comments Β· Fixed by #143
Closed

Changelog for v3 #116

kachkaev opened this issue Feb 21, 2022 · 5 comments Β· Fixed by #143
Assignees

Comments

@kachkaev
Copy link

kachkaev commented Feb 21, 2022

πŸ‘‹ This issue is a new instance of #87. v3.0.0 was released recently but README β†’ Changelog only mentions 2.0.0:

Screenshot 2022-02-21 at 09 47 28

Although it is possible to look at git log and find #114, it is probably too much of a detour for such a popular library πŸ™‚

Screenshot 2022-02-21 at 09 50 53

@dieseldjango
Copy link

Does v3 break compatibility with hashes?

@addaleax
Copy link
Collaborator

Yes, v3.x generates different hashes but is otherwise compatible.

Feel free to open a PR.

@JaLe29
Copy link

JaLe29 commented Mar 12, 2022

@addaleax can you please explain what do you mean by "different hashes"?

// V2
hash({foo: 'bar'}) // => '67b69634f9880a282c14a0f0cb7ba20cf5d677e9'

// V3
hash({foo: 'bar'}) // => 'diferent hash' ????????????

So, sha1 in v2 is not same in v3?

@dwelle
Copy link

dwelle commented Jun 6, 2022

@JaLe29 check #114 β€” previous version wasn't distinguishing between typed arrays

@medikoo
Copy link

medikoo commented Oct 10, 2022

It's better not to release a breaking change than to release it with zero (changelog) documentation.

@jonkoops jonkoops self-assigned this Feb 11, 2024
jonkoops added a commit to jonkoops/object-hash that referenced this issue Feb 11, 2024
jonkoops added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 13, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

7 participants