AngleSharp icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
AngleSharp copied to clipboard

Re-Request for stable release (=version 1.0) / RTM

Open 304NotModified opened this issue 4 years ago • 2 comments

Please reconsider creating a 1.0 version. I requested this years ago: #709, but it doesn't seem to happen.

This library is used by many. The 1.0 version only requires to not making (source) breaking changes! There is no requirement to fix the docs, performance, fix all the bugs etc etc.

Also, if you really need a breaking change, you could make soon a 2.0. That's is better than staying on 0.x forever. (Also related #265)

304NotModified avatar Mar 16 '22 12:03 304NotModified

As mentioned the documentation is not ready for a 1.0 and we miss contributors. It would be great if you could step up and contribute here - much appreciated!

FlorianRappl avatar Mar 16 '22 12:03 FlorianRappl

As a consumer, IMO the quality of docs and code is good enough to mark it as a stable release

SimonCropp avatar May 09 '22 22:05 SimonCropp

Would it be possible to unlist all 1.0.0-* nuget packages? Like https://www.nuget.org/packages/AngleSharp/1.0.0-alpha-844

For me it was quite confusing at first to see an 1.0.0 that is older than 0.17.x

Mertsch avatar Aug 29 '22 13:08 Mertsch

Would it be possible to unlist all 1.0.0-* nuget packages?

Yeah totally - done!

Thanks for the suggestion.

FlorianRappl avatar Aug 29 '22 13:08 FlorianRappl

I'm gonna close this as this isn't something this seem to happen ever.

304NotModified avatar Aug 30 '22 19:08 304NotModified

I'm gonna close this as this isn't something this seem to happen ever.

Nice attitude.

FlorianRappl avatar Aug 30 '22 20:08 FlorianRappl

Nice attitude.

thx

304NotModified avatar Aug 30 '22 20:08 304NotModified

@FlorianRappl Semantic versioning is something that would help every consumer, especially library authors depending on AngleSharp. The frustration you saw is there and it flows down the dependency chain to project-owners trying to keep up with updates and constantly fiddling if it is safe to upgrade a tree or not.

I fully understand that it would be cool to have a perfect package with bells and whistles and comprehensive docs, that following semVer takes a little extra effort, but IMHO it would be worthy to at least reopen this request, to have this on the roadmap. By my view, you have done a good job and it is "good enough" as it is for a real release.

ImrePyhvel avatar Nov 18 '22 11:11 ImrePyhvel

I think you may have misunderstood semver/ the original request @ImrePyhvel .

Also the issue was not closed by me and my comments are still relevant.

FlorianRappl avatar Nov 18 '22 11:11 FlorianRappl