Closed frsimond closed 8 months ago
I'm ok with duplication but we should probably bump the major version as well. Not sure for all of packages or not
Ok. I totally agree that @date-io/date-fns
should have a major version bump. I don't think we need to bump the version globally.
Should I bump the version(s) myself in this PR ?
We can do that later, but what is requried right now it to ensure that the tests are running for both versions of date-fns and we have proper 100% coverage support
Sorry, why did you remove the date-fns-v2?
Working on the tests, I decided to revert the date-fns-v2 because those have explicit reference to the date-fns package. And I dont know how to reference two different versions of the same dependency in the same file.
Furthermore, I think that keeping an old version might be overengineered if we do a major version bump on @date-io/date-fns
@dmtrKovalenko do you think we should maintain a compatibility with date-fns v2 on master ? If so, we might have to change the structure of the repo a little bit to have package-specific tests files.
Thank you for contributation, I am going to merge this right and now and make another breaking changes that I wanted to make for a long time and will release a new version today
I try here to solve #655 and support last version of date-fns with its breaking changes. I decided heer to keep a specific package for backwards compatibility. Not a fan of the resulting code duplication but it's a proposal.