Closed k163377 closed 1 year ago
@k163377 Yes, this looks good to me.
In addition, it'd be good to add something on 2.15 Wiki release notes here:
https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson/wiki/Jackson-Release-2.15#changes-compatibility
(in whichever section makes most sense)
I try to keep these updated based on findings, things users report; so even if not initially included on actual release it should have complete set of information we have.
@cowtowncoder Thank you very much. I probably do not have edit permission to your page, so could you please grant it to me?
@cowtowncoder Thank you very much. I probably do not have edit permission to your page, so could you please grant it to me?
I sent you an invite, that should give access to this wiki and jackson-future-ideas
repo wiki too.
@cowtowncoder Thank you, I have added it. https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson/wiki/Jackson-Release-2.15#kotlin
Can I suggest this instead:
jackson-module-kotlin changes the serialization result of getter-like functions starting with 'is'. For example, a function defined as fun isValid(): Boolean
, which was previously output with the name valid, is now output with the name isValid
(#670).
The term 'regression' implies that we will change the behaviour back to what it was before - that we are accepting it as a bug that needs to be fixed. Documenting it in the release notes then implies the opposite - that we are keeping the change. So, I think we should not use the word 'regression' here.
@pjfanning Thank you for pointing this out.
I am very sorry, but would you be able to help me with PR? I have to rely on machine translation to read and write English, and I am not confident that I can express the nuances of such a case well.
@k163377 I modified the wiki. If anyone feels like my changes are inaccurate, feel free to further edit them.
@pjfanning Thank you very much. It looks very good.
I have submitted a PR regarding the release note.
Thank you @k163377 and @pjfanning ! Good point on semantics of regression: using optimal term helps avoid misunderstanding by users.
Added note regarding disruptive changes reported in #670.
@cowtowncoder Is this an appropriate way to write annotations in such cases? Please let me know if it should be reflected outside of the release notes.