Code change:
is a library yet is is instead of release tag. Please consider vendoring by tag whenever possible. Thanks.
We vendored it that way because the commit that fixed a bug (which we needed to be fixed and vendored back in) was This was merged on June 13. The release 1.1.4 () was released on July 1. If we want to update it to 1.1.4, I believe it should be fine. Between the commit we have vendored right now and the latest release, there are only three commits: adds tests merges (?) the case-sensitive fix - I'm not really sure what this commit is doing. fixes renaming when naming strategy is set (looks fine). Also, there are also no licensing changes. opinions?
/sig api-machinery
+1 to what said, it was a fire drill and 1.11.0 release was in trouble. Though in hind sight, we should have opened a issue to track that. something better to do next time. cc
I'm indifferent to updating this. I'm okay with moving up if it doesn't break anything, or I'm fine with leaving things as is. We don't require deps to match semver. We can version out any commit in a deps tree, as we rely on our vendored copy.
It is always a good idea to match semver and it should be a default policy. Even if it doesn't matter to you, it should, because it is a best practice. Moreover downstream it matters much more as dependencies may be un-vendored in favour of tested re-usable packages.
/cc
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh with . Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with . Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or . /lifecycle stale
Someone please take care of this or bot will eventually close this valid issue without action...
Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity. Mark the issue as fresh with . Rotten issues close after an additional 30d of inactivity. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with . Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or . /lifecycle rotten
/lifecycle rotten
/remove-lifecycle rotten PR open (thanks,
oops! sorry, I meant to remove it. thanks!
Thanks.
please do feel free to open issues/prs of this sort early in the release cycle, so we can work through things needed well before the milestones/freeze etc. we are getting some heat about updating dependencies and we kind of settled on some guidelines here: if you think that needs updating, we could definitely debate that as well :) (on a PR against that doc)
it have nothing to do with release cycle or justification for upgrade if/when dependency has been vendored incorrectly. It is basically a vendoring bug. No debate is necessary although that kind of issues usually meet some resistance and even hostility here... Bugs are filed when they are discovered, regardless of release cycle. It would be wrong to sit on the bug without reporting it in order to synchronise with release cycle.

Related discussion:
text: [[projects]] <del> name = "github.com/json-iterator/go" packages = ["."] revision = "ca39e5af3ece67bbcda3d0f4f56a8e24d9f2dad4" version = "1.1.3" [[projects]] </del> name = "github.com/modern-go/concurrent" packages = ["."] revision = "e0a39a4cb4216ea8db28e22a69f4ec25610d513a"