chore: Bump versions

[noahsmartin]

Just to make the discussion around this concrete/let CI tests run

#skip-changelog

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

:white_check_mark: All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. :white_check_mark: Project coverage is 85.798%. Comparing base (4b58a83) to head (05221e0). :warning: Report is 592 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##              main     #5443       +/-   ##
=============================================
- Coverage   86.227%   85.798%   -0.430%     
=============================================
  Files          399       399               
  Lines        34815     34770       -45     
  Branches     15084     14781      -303     
=============================================
- Hits         30020     29832      -188     
- Misses        4748      4896      +148     
+ Partials        47        42        -5     

see 39 files with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data Powered by Codecov. Last update 4b58a83...05221e0. Read the comment docs.

[github-actions[bot]]

Performance metrics :rocket:

	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
Startup time	1220.63 ms	1250.31 ms	29.68 ms
Size	23.75 KiB	848.16 KiB	824.42 KiB

Baseline results on branch: main

Startup times

Revision	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
72069047728c0dc2ff74f0fb57e6e63e3fa6cd88	1221.86 ms	1242.85 ms	21.00 ms
79f3fcffce55385b29421c807e8cdf24646b4edc	1216.39 ms	1236.21 ms	19.82 ms
3f1be0ffa29a0c08591b42cf18f9cb202a3e990e	1208.12 ms	1225.72 ms	17.60 ms
6604dbbf68e19f201a6368d709536ceacfabb6d4	1248.35 ms	1256.14 ms	7.79 ms
f27331279235309095cb6134d071c17df38d2bbc	1242.92 ms	1259.78 ms	16.86 ms
ed49f0c45e853d078735099abd82315b08ebb099	1245.67 ms	1261.15 ms	15.48 ms
20a828b2b971ed044ce4af19b653ba516dde5c3c	1211.33 ms	1228.00 ms	16.67 ms
7b032f390ccf6b2ee8b93283cf59b271134761fe	1232.24 ms	1257.29 ms	25.05 ms
742d4b693cfd3cf2b7b1d62930d16daaf505d367	1230.41 ms	1247.23 ms	16.83 ms
c1db61e5b57bc99d5b9b33e6fb20faa3f1667463	1228.65 ms	1245.86 ms	17.20 ms

App size

Revision	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
72069047728c0dc2ff74f0fb57e6e63e3fa6cd88	23.76 KiB	861.24 KiB	837.48 KiB
79f3fcffce55385b29421c807e8cdf24646b4edc	23.75 KiB	841.01 KiB	817.26 KiB
3f1be0ffa29a0c08591b42cf18f9cb202a3e990e	20.76 KiB	414.44 KiB	393.69 KiB
6604dbbf68e19f201a6368d709536ceacfabb6d4	22.84 KiB	402.56 KiB	379.72 KiB
f27331279235309095cb6134d071c17df38d2bbc	21.58 KiB	707.35 KiB	685.77 KiB
ed49f0c45e853d078735099abd82315b08ebb099	21.58 KiB	632.13 KiB	610.55 KiB
20a828b2b971ed044ce4af19b653ba516dde5c3c	21.58 KiB	670.99 KiB	649.41 KiB
7b032f390ccf6b2ee8b93283cf59b271134761fe	22.31 KiB	819.58 KiB	797.27 KiB
742d4b693cfd3cf2b7b1d62930d16daaf505d367	21.58 KiB	546.20 KiB	524.62 KiB
c1db61e5b57bc99d5b9b33e6fb20faa3f1667463	22.30 KiB	851.56 KiB	829.26 KiB

Previous results on branch: bumpMinVersion

Startup times

Revision	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
005fbd22c595c824f3c566216dc1f9f1c8818de7	1224.81 ms	1247.04 ms	22.23 ms

App size

Revision	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
005fbd22c595c824f3c566216dc1f9f1c8818de7	23.75 KiB	847.92 KiB	824.17 KiB

[philipphofmann]

I think it's acceptable to do this even in a non major because you have to use Xcode 16 to submit apps and you now can't use iOS 11 anymore as the min OS version. We only must clearly point this out in the changelog.

[noahsmartin]

We're going to wait until the next release (8.53.0) is out and then merge this

[armcknight]

This should be a breaking change that shouldn't ship until V9.

ETA because I just saw Philipp's comment: two considerations:

• there may be people shipping the SDK to places other than app stores, where they can still use older versions of Xcode/SDKs
• if we really want to call this a fix vs a breaking change, we should wait until the version of Xcode that is forcing this is actually supported to ship to the app store (maybe it already is? sounds like it from some other convos but I don't know for sure)

[philipphofmann]

if we really want to call this a fix vs a breaking change, we should wait until the version of Xcode that is forcing this is actually supported to ship to the app store (maybe it already is? sounds like it from some other convos but I don't know for sure)

Yes, you must use Xcode 16 now to submit to the app store https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-cocoa/pull/5443#issuecomment-2995632044

[armcknight]

Ah, sorry, I thought this was due to Xcode 26.

If this is a warning in Xcode 16, is this already breaking customer workflows in any way? Like, does it show up as an error in any way by some combination of a package manager and settings like treating warnings as errors? Or does it actually prevent submissions to the app store? Has this been reported by anyone? Essentially: what is the urgency here?

The thing is that this has the potential to break some peoples' workflows, which is why I advocate to make this a major revision. You can always rationalize something as just a bugfix, but if it breaks contracts, it breaks contracts, there is no rationalizing away CI failures. We should just be up front about that by reporting it in the standardized way with semver.

This is why I proposed a while ago to bump these minimum versions every fall with the new GAs of Xcode in our own major revisions in lockstep with Xcode. That can has already been kicked down the road for years, despite my prodding, in the name of backwards compatibility, and now we want to break that same compatibility in a poorly communicated fashion. I think we can wait a bit longer and do it the right way.

[philipphofmann]

Those are valid points, @armcknight. So let's do it properly and do this with a major release. It's worth noting that we don't have to tackle all major items in https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-cocoa/discussions/2946 for v9. Doing the most important ones is also acceptable and save some for v10.

[kahest]

I agree with @armcknight and @philipphofmann here - we should prioritise shipping v9 and bump the versions as part of that

[philprime]

Can we mark this PR as draft or close it until v9?

[philipphofmann]

I'm for closing PRs that we don't plan on merging soon. Too many open draft PRs are a bit of noise and I would like to keep the number low.

[philprime]

I'll change it to draft because we are not ready for it yet.