Bump version number for re-publishing. #68
Conversation
analyzer versions)
Added a workaround for a bug in DDC (used in build_web_compilers 1.x).
| @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ | |||
| ## 2.1.1+1 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't this be 2.1.2? I thought we discouraged + version numbers when the major number is > 0.
Otherwise, I don't think the package will be updated unless you do a pub get from scratch or a pub upgrade.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
mmmm.... I defer to pub and versioning originator @munificent (see his comment on this: #68 (review)). But don't you always not get updates unless you say pub upgrade?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Otherwise, I don't think the package will be updated unless you do a pub get from scratch or a pub upgrade.
From pub perspective all version numbers are ordered. And you can list +1 in your pubspec.yaml, but people rarely do. Also if allowed +1 will be preferred afaik.
I'll move this discussion to the issue we had on discouraging / defining when to use it.
* Bump version number
No description provided.