go.mod: Clarify retractions #17
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add a comment to go.mod that is placed according to the go.mod
specification to give some background to the retraction of older
releases. Also make the text more clear to explain what happened.
The 2.0.0 version is removed from the list, as it was leading to an
error e.g. from go mod tidy:
go.mod:24:2: retract github.com/tredoe/osutil: version "v2.0.0" invalid: should be v0 or v1, not v2
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Add a comment to go.mod that is placed according to the go.mod specification to give some background to the retraction of older releases. Also make the text more clear to explain what happened.
The 2.0.0 version is removed from the list, as it was leading to an error e.g. from go mod tidy:
I made this after looking for an issue with a downstream project that pulls this one as a dependency broke after this. People got a bit worried that something nefarious may have happened here (I did check for clues of malicious code hidden here now, in fact). The new wording will hopefully ease the mind of people hitting this problem in the future. (This can still hit downstreams that don't update and build their modules frequently.)