Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

doc: RFC for handling prerelease strings. ref #510 #2051

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

doc: RFC for handling prerelease strings. ref #510 #2051

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
4a5a6b6
doc: RFC for handling prerealease strings. ref #510
broofa Aug 24, 2023
5f803c5
improved verbiage
broofa Aug 25, 2023
39a2625
verbiage
broofa Aug 25, 2023
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
40 changes: 40 additions & 0 deletions rfcs/pre-release.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
# Feature Request: Support Pre-Release Versions

## Problem

It is not uncommon for projects to provide "pre-release" versions with experimental or in-development functionality. For example, the `uuidjs` project has an ["rfc4122bis" branch](https://github.com/uuidjs/uuid/pull/681) for the new UUID formats. Rather than releasing this new feature set on the main version track ("`9.0.x`"), the team would like to release this on a "pre-release" track using versions like "`9.0.x-bis.x`".

`release-please` does not currently support this. When bumping the version in a repo, pre-release suffixes get dropped. For example, [in this release PR](https://github.com/uuidjs/uuid/pull/731) we see`"version": "9.0.0-releasetest.0"` [in package.json](https://github.com/uuidjs/uuid/pull/731/files#diff-7ae45ad102eab3b6d7e7896acd08c427a9b25b346470d7bc6507b6481575d519R3) is changed to `"version": "9.0.1"` instead something more sensical, such as `"version": "9.0.0-releasetest.1"`

## Solution

To solve the above, it's proposed that release-please change how versions are bumped based on the [already supported] [`prerelease`](https://github.com/google-github-actions/release-please-action#configuration) option. Specifically, if `prerelease` is true, the behavior should be as follows:

1. Require `version` (the current release version string) to conform to the "prerelease version" syntax in [the semver specification](https://semver.org/#spec-item-9):
> A pre-release version MAY be denoted by appending a hyphen and a series of dot separated identifiers immediately following the patch version.
I.e. `version` must contain a hyphen followed by at least one identifier.
2. Split `version` at the first hyphen ("-"), creating `normalVersion` (left side), and `prereleaseVersion` (right side).
2. Leave `normalVersion` unchanged.
3. Locate the _right-most numeric field_ in `prereleaseVersion` and increment it by `1`.
4. If `prereleaseVersion` does not contain a numeric field append "`.0`".
5. Create a the new version by concatenating `normalVersion`, `"-"`, and the bumped `prereleaseVersion` string.

**Examples**:
| Version | Bumped version |
|---|---|
| 1.0.0-alpha | 1.0.0-alpha.0 |
| 1.0.0-alpha.1 | 1.0.0-alpha.2 |
| 1.0.0-alpha.1.omega | 1.0.0-alpha.2.omega |
| 1.0.0-alpha.1.omega.1 | 1.0.0-alpha.1.omega.2 |
| 1.0.0-0.3.7 | 1.0.0-0.3.8 |
| 1.0.0-x.7.z.92 | 1.0.0-x.7.z.93 |

### Rational for "rightmost-number bump" logic

The SemVer spec does not go into detail about the semantics of prerelease versions, other than to state they have lower precedence:

> Pre-release versions have a lower precedence than the associated normal version

Other than being preceeded by a hyphen and consisting of "a series of dot separated identifiers", prerelease versions can be *anything*. There's no requirement there even be a numeric component to them, let alone any semantic relationship to the normal major-minor-patch fields.

Thus, applying the simple and (hopefully) intuitive right-most-number logic described above should will minimize the amount of confusion this causes. If/when users demand more involved logic, new schemes can be added at a future date.