Closed lnielsen closed 8 years ago
@lnielsen I'm sorry. This should have not been introduced in first place as it's not according to MARC21.
OT1H it's not nice to introduce an incompatible change in the patchlevel release, OTOH dojson v1.2.0 clearly misinterpreted the MARC standard originally, so that d3272c0b0e5cb2a62c801eb9f25a4a783940189f could be considered a bug fix that has its place in the patchlevel release...
@lnielsen I'm sorry too. As @tiborsimko mentioned I considered it as a bug fix because according to MARC21 is a non-repeatable field https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd100.html
The change introduced in d3272c0b0e5cb2a62c801eb9f25a4a783940189f is a backward incompatible change (breaks code on Zenodo), so the change ought to have been release in a
v1.3.0
instead ofv1.2.1
. Just logging the issue here for completeness