-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 480
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
Prepare release 1.27.2 #1010
Prepare release 1.27.2 #1010
Conversation
CHANGELOG.md
Outdated
|
||
- Add documentation to config ([@yurishkuro](https://github.com/yurishkuro) in [#1007](https://github.com/jaegertracing/jaeger-ui/pull/1007)) | ||
|
||
- Bump async from 2.6.2 to 2.6.4 ([@dependabot](https://github.com/dependabot) in [#1002](https://github.com/jaegertracing/jaeger-ui/pull/1002)) |
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.
I thought we should exclude dependency version bumps from release notes?
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.
Good point, the previous releases except 1.27.1 didn't list dependencies bumps. However, the rule is not documented anywhere.
Since there is less feature work, I would propose listing dependencies bumps (except updating GHA versions).
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.
My vote is to exclude version bumps (unless if they relate to specific issues) because they make it hard to spot features/fixes contributed by the community.
I think it made sense to include the dependency bump in 1.27.1 because (my guess is) the new versions fix a specific known issue that directly impacted Jaeger UI.
If there are no features/fixes contributed during the month, I think it's okay to use a placeholder to indicate no relevant Jaeger UI changes were made.
That's just my two-cents worth; not sure what others (esp. @yurishkuro) think.
the rule is not documented anywhere.
I just applied the same changelog grooming practices from jaegertracing/jaeger to this repo. Good point though, I think either way, maybe we should more explicitly document the what should and should not be included.
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.
I suggest we add 'grip -v dependabot' to the script for generating release notes.
Codecov ReportBase: 95.34% // Head: 95.30% // Decreases project coverage by
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1010 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 95.34% 95.30% -0.04%
==========================================
Files 243 243
Lines 7561 7561
Branches 1895 1895
==========================================
- Hits 7209 7206 -3
- Misses 345 348 +3
Partials 7 7
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. ☔ View full report at Codecov. |
packages/jaeger-ui/package.json
Outdated
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ | |||
{ | |||
"private": true, | |||
"name": "jaeger-ui", | |||
"version": "1.27.1", | |||
"version": "1.28.0", |
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.
This could be just 1.27.2 as there are no even minor features added
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.
done and I have reverted the dependabot PRs as well
Signed-off-by: Pavol Loffay <[email protected]>
1ff86dd
to
f03f973
Compare
Signed-off-by: Pavol Loffay [email protected]
Which problem is this PR solving?
Short description of the changes