-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 37
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
Backport v0.9 various fixes to v0.8 #72
Conversation
Fix incorrect match (listen command)
adding a hint to lnpd init to panic
@zoedberg can you pls accept invitation to this org such that I can assing a review to you? |
sure, just accepted. @dr-orlovsky |
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.
tested by cherry-picking on top of this branch the commit updating clap, works good, thanks @dr-orlovsky
Looking at all these changes I have a serious doubt whence we need to do this "backporting". Most of them for sure are API-breaking etc. It will take a lot of time to review. Why to invest time into that if we have Anyway wait for your opinion and review @zoedberg. I would not spend my time into sorting out what of this is a breaking change... |
For us breaking changes at the API level are not an issue because we’re still in an early phase of lnp-node integration. But your observation is correct, it may be a problem for devs that already started integrating that (for example I think diba is already integrating lnp-node, right @cryptoquick?), so we probably should not backport everything but only non breaking changes (if any) |
I think that overall it should be nice to stick to the semver requirements than to rely on an assumption that nobody uses this. So is there a reason to backport (potentially breaking) new features from v0.9 to v0.8 if we already have v0.9 released? Tagging @nicbus as one of the main proponents of semver which I know :D |
I think we all agree that sticking to semver and not having braking changes in a minor/patch release is best. therefore, as @zoedberg was also saying, what's desirable is to have only non-breaking changes backported into v0.8, but I also see your point about this requiring some time to review each change to assess if it has to be excluded in the end, I think there are no problems in leaving these fixes out of v0.8 for the above reasons but, before we choose to do so, I'd wait for a go from @cryptoquick, as diba might need some of these |
We're fully updated to 0.9 here at DIBA, so I don't have a horse in this race. |
ok so I guess we can close this PR without merging it and release a new lnp-node with just clap update @dr-orlovsky |
As requested by @zoedberg in #65