Skip to content

History dependency fixed at v1.12.3 in react-router 1.0.0-rc3 #2252

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.

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

Closed
dlwalsh opened this issue Oct 12, 2015 · 4 comments
Closed

History dependency fixed at v1.12.3 in react-router 1.0.0-rc3 #2252

dlwalsh opened this issue Oct 12, 2015 · 4 comments

Comments

@dlwalsh
Copy link

dlwalsh commented Oct 12, 2015

The latest release of react-router (v1.0.0-rc3) sets the history dependency version at "1.12.3".

Is there a reason for mandating "1.12.3" as opposed to "^1.12.3"?

I like to stay on top of the latest releases. I'm having no issues using the latest version of history (v1.12.5), other than the npm errors.

@dlwalsh dlwalsh changed the title History dependency fixed at 1.12.3 in react-router 1.0.0-rc3 History dependency fixed at 1.12.3 in react-router 1.0.0-rc3v Oct 12, 2015
@dlwalsh dlwalsh changed the title History dependency fixed at 1.12.3 in react-router 1.0.0-rc3v History dependency fixed at v1.12.3 in react-router 1.0.0-rc3 Oct 12, 2015
@taion
Copy link
Contributor

taion commented Oct 13, 2015

How are you hitting NPM errors? NPM's fine with libraries having incompatible subdependencies.

@timdorr
Copy link
Member

timdorr commented Oct 13, 2015

It looks like we might switch to a peer dependency for the final release, according to #2211. And if we do that, we'll go full semver and not lock to a specific version.

In the meantime, as long as you pass in your own history to <Router>, it will use it and that can be whatever version works best for you.

@taion
Copy link
Contributor

taion commented Oct 13, 2015

@mjackson What do you think of changing the dependency to ~1.12.3 or ^1.12.3? Not sure if caret range is okay - is there a risk of accidentally adding new features if history does a minor bump? Actually probably not.

@mjackson
Copy link
Member

@taion As long as we add the peer dep we're ok, right? I think we can just use ~1. I'm not planning on introducing any breaking changes without a major version bump.

mjackson added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 13, 2015
mjackson added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 13, 2015
@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jan 23, 2019
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants