-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 320
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
3.1 release blogpost #1284
3.1 release blogpost #1284
Conversation
@prolativ: can you take a look and suggest changes? @pikinier20: can you suggest a few sentences about Scastie in Scaladoc and provide a gif showing the new functionality. |
Co-authored-by: Vinz <bazzucchi.vincenzo@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Michał Pałka <prolativus@gmail.com>
I apologize for not suggesting this sooner, but I think it's really important that the blog post be super explicit and up-front about the following: https://twitter.com/SethTisue/status/1450260785762947076
|
We could have a blurb similar to the one used in the Scala.js blog posts: https://www.scala-js.org/news/2021/08/04/announcing-scalajs-1.7.0/ (starting from "This is a minor release"). |
I've added a paragraph about compatibility. |
Co-authored-by: Dale Wijnand <dale.wijnand@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Julien Richard-Foy <julien@richard-foy.fr>
Co-authored-by: Jamie Thompson <bishbashboshjt@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Julien Richard-Foy <julien@richard-foy.fr>
Co-authored-by: Julien Richard-Foy <julien@richard-foy.fr>
|
||
Although we cannot guarantee full source compatibility between minor versions, we have put a lot of effort into assuring that all code that was working in 3.0.2, except in some rare cases, will also work in 3.1.0. This means that if you are an application developer, you can confidently update the compiler version to take advantage of the newest improvements. You will still be able to use dependencies compiled with Scala 3.0. | ||
|
||
If you are a library maintainer, *updating to 3.1.0 will force all of your users to update to 3.1.0 as well*. We understand that the current state of binary compatibility may be unsatisfactory. We are actively working on technical solutions to support forward-compatibility in 3.2.0. In the meantime, we recommend testing your library with Scala 3.1.0 and 3.0.2, but _publishing_ it with 3.0.2. This will allow downstream users to use your library even if they can’t update to Scala 3.1.0. You can find an example of build that follows this recommendation [here](https://github.com/typelevel/scalacheck/pull/847). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We are actively working on technical solutions to support forward-compatibility in 3.2.0.
Is this a promise? It isn't, right? We aren't sure if this will actually happen in 3.2.0? If so, consider weakening the wording a little, perhaps to "We are exploring possible technical solutions to..."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It is intended to be a promise - a promise that we will not release another minor version until we have a solution for the compatibility problem.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think we should commit - and therefore sound like we're committing - to that. That's not to say I'm not all for finding something better and shipping it in 3.2.0. But if it takes 6 months we might ship everything else as a minor release before the solution. So let's mention intent and desire, but no commitment.
Co-authored-by: Michał Pałka <prolativus@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Michał Pałka <prolativus@gmail.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is missing the bit about suggesting to update in a minor version, if updating.
After #1284 (comment) I and @romanowski decided that if we are recommending not publishing builds for 3.1 at all, it will only add to the confusion if later we suggest in which version the bump should be performed. |
The first draft of the 3.1 release blogpost.