Getting weird behavior with duo and v1.2.0?

[lancejpollard]

https://github.com/duojs/duo/issues/274#issuecomment-54366045

Could we just remove the tag for v1.2.0 and keep 1.2.0. That would fix it I think, without requiring too much digging into how duo is resolving dependencies :-)

/cc @MatthewMueller @ianstormtaylor

[defunctzombie]

No, we cannot remove the v1.2.0 tag. I use the v tagging style and that is the new one going forward. I added a 1.2.0 tag to the correct commit (you tagged the wrong commit). Please avoid such changes on the repo without asking first.

[defunctzombie]

Duo needs to be fixed, not this project.

[matthewmueller]

always great when new maintainers break consistency because they feel like it.

[defunctzombie]

@MatthewMueller No one was maintaining this project. I took over maintaining it and adding new features. No one complained. No one cared because the old maintainers left to create their own new version (which is awesome, I did not care). But please don't come in now and mis-tag things just because you have access to the repo. Duo has nothing to do with this module and just coming in and doing whatever you feel like because you have commit rights now is not nice.

Anyhow, I will be moving this repo and my maintaining it away from component org since I don't use component and don't want random people from segment.io mucking with this because they can. Please do not mess with the repo until I move it.

[matthewmueller]

What's wrong with forking it? A lot of folks I know use reactive < 1. Cloudup, Segment, many of my old projects use it. In fact I think most of us considered it a finished product. There weren't many contributions because there wasn't much left to add, minus a bug fix or two.

Please bear in mind that we all worked on reactive. Off the top of my head, TJ wrote the base, Anthony wrote many of the plugins, I abstracted out the bindings. I don't think it's right to lay claims to the project because you're the most active contributor right now.

This is definitely a Duo issue so I do get your point that this has nothing to do with reactive, I just don't see the point of mucking with consistency unless there's a good reason to do so.

[defunctzombie]

@MatthewMueller sorry, I meant to say fork. Obviously I have no intention of moving it away from this location cause that would break things.

No one told me to not make the changes or that they saw it as finished. I proposed them in PRs over many months and there was lackluster commenting at best.

I was mostly annoyed at the mis-tagging of the commit (seemed very haphazard to me by someone I had not seen contribute to the project).

Not saying I am the only contributor but it does feel like the project was abandoned in favor of some of the other projects y'all went on to create.

[matthewmueller]

@defunctzombie Yep that's fair. Obviously "finished product" depends on who's looking. I haven't had a chance to review the changes made in 1.x but I'm sure they're an improvement.

[defunctzombie]

@lancejpollard why did you delete the v1.2.0 tag after I explicitly asked you NOT TO? Seriously WTF.

[lancejpollard]

@defunctzombie sorry dude, you can re-add it by just creating the tag from the 1.2.0 branch, should be fine, didn't change anything.

[lancejpollard]

@defunctzombie we're using this heavily at segmentio. i did a quick sampling of the versioning of other components and this v1.2.0 was an outlier, so thought it was a mistake. it's causing our code to break though so we need to fix it.

[jonathanong]

lol wow. imo not supporting vs is a duo issue. you already get the tag names via git ls-remote, you should be able to deduce the real tags from that.