Closed shunjizhan closed 1 year ago
Not very sure about having runtime version in package version. It could be a bit confusing for downstream users that are not aware about this.
Not very sure about having runtime version in package version. It could be a bit confusing for downstream users that are not aware about this.
I saw some other projects using such naming, but yeah it might be a little confusing, so let's just keep conventional versioning
these types are auto generated from Acala metadata 2200, in theory they should be correct, but since this is the first time we do such upgrade, can you take a quick glance to see if the generated result make sense? @xlc @ermalkaleci
In the future we should keep doing this for every runtime upgrade, so types will always be up to date
Also, should we use runtime version for the package version? Such as
6.0.2200
to make it more explicit which runtime it is synced to