Will robolectric-bazel follow KSP's release rule for extra bazel related patch version?

[utzcoz]

See #92, #92 (comment).

This idea was brought by @Bencodes , and it looks great to me, and sometimes we need to release new versions for bazel related patches only.

[utzcoz]

What do you think about it @brettchabot @hoisie ?

[Bencodes]

Shall we press forward with this? Easy enough to roll back to the old versioning if we decide in the future that it's not worth it or adds too much overhead.

[utzcoz]

@Bencodes I think this new version schema proposal is great. But I think it might require extra approvals from Robolectric's leader @hoisie @brettchabot . If they don't response, I will ping them with email again this weekend.

[hoisie]

This all SGTM, thanks @Bencodes for taking the lead on this. I am happy to proceed.

[utzcoz]

@hoisie Thanks for showing your suggestion. @Bencodes Maybe we can start to land a new version with this new schema.

[Bencodes]

Just pushed a release with the new versioning. Thanks @hoisie and @utzcoz!

[Bencodes]

Found an issue with this approach. The BCR treats the -1.0.0 as a pre-release rather than a new release.

bazelbuild/bazel-central-registry#1595 (comment)

[Bencodes]

Looking at the tests this versioning strategy will work as expected if we clean-cut to a new major release. But this doesn't solve the immediate problem of us needing to do a version bump on the Bazel rules.

https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel-central-registry/blob/ddc9cd60dcd11a65e200dd2275c4babd837fe928/tools/version_test.py#L8

[utzcoz]

@Bencodes Maye we can use the version like 4.11.1.1?

[utzcoz]

There is a test for 4.11.1.1 > 4.11.1, see https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel-central-registry/blob/ddc9cd60dcd11a65e200dd2275c4babd837fe928/tools/version_test.py#L14.

[Bencodes]

4.11.1.1 would work, it just has more opportunity to conflict with the upstream Robolectric releases, which wouldn't be ideal and potentially cause confusion.

[utzcoz]

@Bencodes I think Robolectric will bump to Robolectric 4.11.2 instead of 4.11.1.1 for a minor patch version. Maybe it is safe to use this patch format in Bazel library?

[Bencodes]

@utzcoz that works for me!

[utzcoz]

@hoisie Can we confirm that the Robolectric maven only uses three version numbers, and the last one is left to Robolectric Bazel? It's better we can give a confirmation for this decision.

[utzcoz]

@Bencodes I give my +1 for new versioning. So we can use new versioning for later patch version.

[utzcoz]

I will release 4.14.1.1 for #121 based on new patch versioning.

[utzcoz]

I close this issue as I think we reached a consensus for bazel's patch version, and 4.14.1.1 is an example. Anyone can reopen this issue, if you want to discuss more with a better solution.