You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Noticed that e.g. in a situation where one puts out a minor release and major release at the same time, one doesn't actually want features in the minor to duplicate into the major all the time - it's implied the major will include them.
So, one wants to do e.g. (>=1.17,<2.0), explicitly. However, as it's a feature and thus only subject to landing in the one minor release bucket, one can more succinctly say (==1.17).
Thus this ticket is for making that even easier and perhaps allowing (1.17), i.e. the == is implicit. Not 100% sure, and assuming folks will only really want to use these syntaxes around (rare) major releases, it's not like we really need the savings. But noting just in case.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Spinoff of #45.
Noticed that e.g. in a situation where one puts out a minor release and major release at the same time, one doesn't actually want features in the minor to duplicate into the major all the time - it's implied the major will include them.
So, one wants to do e.g.
(>=1.17,<2.0)
, explicitly. However, as it's a feature and thus only subject to landing in the one minor release bucket, one can more succinctly say(==1.17)
.Thus this ticket is for making that even easier and perhaps allowing
(1.17)
, i.e. the==
is implicit. Not 100% sure, and assuming folks will only really want to use these syntaxes around (rare) major releases, it's not like we really need the savings. But noting just in case.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: