On Feb 16, 2015 12:51 PM, "Adam Fuchs" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't think bumping up to 2.0 lets us break compatibility anyway (without > a deprecation cycle), so I think option B is the only option if we're going > to release another version. > > Adam > >
I didn't check yet to see if the breaking changes had been through a deprecation cycle. I wasn't sure what counted as one given the adoption of semver. I also couldn't find where in our current versioning guidance we stated that we'd still do a major version deprecation before breaking. Are we just going to go with needing things deprecated through all of 2.y.z before they're removed? Or do we need a DISCUSS thread on the topic?
