chore(release-please): generate a patch release on "chore:" and "deps:"#770
chore(release-please): generate a patch release on "chore:" and "deps:"#770gustavogama-cll wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Updates the release-please configuration so that chore: and deps: conventional commits trigger a patch version bump (instead of being hidden/no-op), aligning them with the existing behavior for perf and revert.
Changes:
- Removes
hidden: truefrom thechoresection and adds"bump": "patch". - Adds a new
depssection with"bump": "patch".
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
| "changelog-sections": [ | ||
| { "type": "build", "section": "Builds", "hidden": true }, | ||
| { "type": "chore", "section": "Miscellaneous", "hidden": true }, | ||
| { "type": "chore", "section": "Miscellaneous", "bump": "patch" }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
do we really want patch bump for chore? Chore can be changes that do not require a bump.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe. But when they do require a bump it's super painful to cut a release.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you provider another link? The current one for some reasons linked me only to the CLD Support Tracker board.
maybe. But when they do require a bump it's super painful to cut a release.
Bumping version on a chore is diverging from the standard of semantic release. chore is considered internal maintenance work that does not affect consumers of the package. We should be using the right prefix like fix or feat right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you provider another link? The current one for some reasons linked me only to the CLD Support Tracker board.
Hmmm. Not sure what happened. This is the link I meant to share.
Bumping version on a chore is diverging from the standard of semantic release. chore is considered internal maintenance work that does not affect consumers of the package
I honestly think this is an oversimplification. In the instance I'm linking to, the author was bumping the version of a dependency, which most people (including myself) use "chore:" for. While looking for solutions to the guardian ticket, I saw discussions where people said they override the default settings to include "docs:" and "refactor:", and I kind of agree with it. In fact, if it was up to me we'd configure all changelog sections as "bump": "patch" (I was the one defending automatic bumps for libraries, after all. 😁).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right! i can see where you are coming from, i am in between minds of either we should be using fix for bumping dependencies when we want to perform a release, eg Felix PR here versus allowing chore to perform a bump too. Lets see what other thinks.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
chore is also the prefix used when cutting a release. By making it a bump, I believe this would cause the merge of the automated PR to create a new release.
We should be vigilant of the PR prefixes that people are using when we review. We are also able to make the changes ourselves if we feel what they have chosen doesn't match.
No description provided.