-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Release/v1.0.0 #54
Release/v1.0.0 #54
Conversation
Oops, @Megapixel99 I should have been more careful with my approvals. I didn't notice that you were not doing a squash merge and/or doing that before you merged the PR. I am going to to do a rebase on this right now, but will also see if I can make the merge require more than just linear commit history. I will also be more careful in the future not to approve until the commits are cleaned up. |
update readme allow custom plugins via `customScripts` and `plugins` update tests add additional info to readme hide `plugin` if there are no plugins
Remove redoc references Update tests to remove redoc references Update readme to remove redoc references remove redoc from `package.json`
0c5e00b
to
95285c4
Compare
The section under Note on package name should be fixed or removed. I don't think that's accurate anymore. |
I was just thinking about that. I would be down for updating all the references in the readme to update that. That said, I still have hopes of being able to move this into the org and scope someday. But I totally agree that for now it is probably better to remove that. |
#55 Remove "Note on package name" and fix references |
Please merge #56 before merging this PR. |
I re-targeted #56 at this branch. First it had accidentally included the redoc breaking change in it and retargeting that resolves that. Secondly I think it is technically a breaking change despite the original way it was handled being entirely useless and this being a good feature addition. Just more safe to do since we plan a major very soon to bundle them together. |
I thought I had already re-targeted #56, unsure what changed its target... |
No worries, not a big deal, just wanted to make sure I called it out that I had changed it and why. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@wesleytodd Please consider moving typescript issues/features outside of this PR scope, so that we can merge this. We can still work on them in another release.
Should we update the npm packages along the way? Thanks!
Hey, really sorry to have left this hanging so long. I got a bit distracted with expressjs/discussions#160. Since that is moving along now, I was going to propose we move this (finally) into the Express project and then we can get you folks on boarded as commiters (and likely project captains if you are interested). I really don't mean to be the bottleneck here, sorry. I am working today to test out the next express version (which I will update the tests here with) and then I will try and release it asap. Again, really sorry for being the hold up here! |
Ok, so I added both support for testing with the two express majors and 5 is failing as reported in #57. I am going to fix that now and then publish if I finish it in time. |
I will leave that #59 open over night and release in the morning. Just want to give y'all a chance to try it out. |
No worries, thank you for getting beck to us so quickly. I would be willing to help work on Express if more people are needed, unsure how long it would take for me to be able to contribute in any meaningful way. |
I did not find any issues when testing it. |
- merge-deep ^3.0.2 → ^3.0.3 - mocha ^10.2.0 → ^10.3.0 - router ^1.3.3 → ^1.3.8 - serve-static ^1.13.2 → ^1.15.0 - supertest ^6.3.3 → ^6.3.4 - swagger-ui-dist ^5.4.2 → ^5.11.8 - yaml ^2.3.1 → ^2.4.0
219bd06
to
23e79fa
Compare
@Megapixel99 Happy to have your help!! We are getting the governance and initial process stuff done now but will be needing folks who can help us steward all the different packages. Some need less work than others, so any help no matter how "meaningful" it might seem at first is for sure meaningful. |
Ok, sounds good. Feel free to ping me when you finish setting up the governance and initial process. |
Just wanted to put together a quick 1.0.0 plan. We have three breaking changes lined up:
I was thinking maybe we should quickly tackle a few of the open issues as well before we release?
Maybe we don't need to land all this, most of these are non breaking and could go out after 1.0.0, but just wanted to see what folks thought.