search

voxpupuli / metadata-json-lint

Tool to check the validity of Puppet metadata.json files
Apache License 2.0
29 stars 27 forks source link

get to v1.0.0 #35

Closed ghoneycutt closed 7 years ago

ghoneycutt commented 7 years ago

Since this is a dependency of puppetlabs_spec_helper and is widely used, a roadmap to get to v1.0.0 should be planned.

nibalizer commented 7 years ago

I think the answer to that is: release 1.0.0

ghoneycutt commented 7 years ago

Does anyone have any breaking changes that they want to get in? Which ruby versions will be supported?

nibalizer commented 7 years ago

https://github.com/voxpupuli/metadata-json-lint/pull/37

nibalizer commented 7 years ago

I do think we should be clear about what a breaking change for us is though. If the metadata.json spec itself changes, and m-j-l changes to reflect that, is that a version bump for m-j-l? I dont think so but I wonder if anyone disagrees.

rnelson0 commented 7 years ago

38 has some things #37 doesn't, and vice versa. I've reviewed both with my comments.

As for metadata.json specs, I think we wait and see if it ever happens. But I suspect it would coincide with a major version change in puppet, and then it might make sense to do a major version bump ourselves so we could say "m-j-l < 2.0 pairs with puppet < 5.0; m-j-l >= 2.0 pairs with puppet >= 5.0" or similar.

ghoneycutt commented 7 years ago

I based my work off of PR #37 so @nibalizer could incorporate it into the next release. If other people have changes, they could also base off of that branch.

ghoneycutt commented 7 years ago

Regarding versioning, both of your approaches seems fine with me. Perhaps you could take this to the mailing list and see what the rest of the community thinks.

nibalizer commented 7 years ago

So far this is what we've got for metadata.json spec. https://docs.puppet.com/guides/style_guide.html#module-metadata

rnelson0 commented 7 years ago

Is anyone aware of breaking changes to the format, or was that just a theoretical? If not, we should split that into a new issue.

ghoneycutt commented 7 years ago

I was asking if anyone wants to make breaking changes to the m-j-l code base before it goes 1.0.0.

rnelson0 commented 7 years ago

Looking at open issues, #18 could be added without a breaking-change. #26 I think would be - but I am inclined to close it and proceed with author being a required field both per documentation and, like license, as requiring a deliberate value instead of implicit value. Do either of you see a reason to keep #26 open?

If not, then #37/#38 look good to me, we just need to merge 38 first.

ghoneycutt commented 7 years ago

WRT #26 I agree that it should be removed from the required list, as it is not required as per the docs. That should happen before v1.

rnelson0 commented 7 years ago

We're live! https://rubygems.org/gems/metadata-json-lint/ The publish date is wrong and I've opened a PR to fix that in the future. I'm not aware of any way to fix that on rubygems short of yank and publish 1.0.1 but I don't think it's that vital myself. If it is, let me know and I'll bump version and republish before closing this.