Upgrade the framework version to 2.1.0 by dreampiggy · Pull Request #597 · SVGKit/SVGKit · GitHub
Skip to content

Upgrade the framework version to 2.1.0#597

Merged
adamgit merged 3 commits into
SVGKit:2.xfrom
dreampiggy:project_release_2.1.0
Oct 29, 2018
Merged

Upgrade the framework version to 2.1.0#597
adamgit merged 3 commits into
SVGKit:2.xfrom
dreampiggy:project_release_2.1.0

Conversation

@dreampiggy

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Upgrade the framework version to 2.1.0. After this PR was merged, we can create a git tag 2.1.0 and release the new version.

And I update the readme to introduce the macOS support for user.

@adamgit

adamgit commented Oct 29, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@dreampiggy

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@adamgit This is the prepare before we release v2.1.0. Please have a check.

@dreampiggy

dreampiggy commented Oct 29, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

It seems the Demo project using the SVGKit.framework. That static library is a standalone build configuration and not related to Demo project...But anyway, I can update it.

image

@dreampiggy dreampiggy changed the title Upgrade the framework version to 2.1.0 WIP:Upgrade the framework version to 2.1.0 Oct 29, 2018
@dreampiggy

dreampiggy commented Oct 29, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@adamgit Any reason we generate the static library with that version number ? Why not just SVGKit-iOS.a ? I've joined other open source organization. The static library like SDWebImage or CocoaLumberjack does not append this version number.

image

@adamgit

adamgit commented Oct 29, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I am not sure, but ... I think it's a standard that Apple/Xcode used?

I agree that if we could get safely remove the version from the name then it would make the library easier for us to maintain!

663FCFF616C9AF3C00CCBFB3 /* Sample Licenses from svg-android project.txt in Resources */ = {isa = PBXBuildFile; fileRef = 663FCFF516C9AF3C00CCBFB3 /* Sample Licenses from svg-android project.txt */; };
663FD00416CAB16B00CCBFB3 /* groups-and-layers-test.svg in Resources */ = {isa = PBXBuildFile; fileRef = 663FD00316CAB16B00CCBFB3 /* groups-and-layers-test.svg */; };
6649E0AD1617479200AFE92A /* QuartzCore.framework in Frameworks */ = {isa = PBXBuildFile; fileRef = 6649E0AC1617479200AFE92A /* QuartzCore.framework */; };
6649E10D1617577000AFE92A /* libSVGKit-iOS.2.0.0.a in Frameworks */ = {isa = PBXBuildFile; fileRef = 6649E10A1617574700AFE92A /* libSVGKit-iOS.2.0.0.a */; };

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Now there's no libSVGKit-iOS.x.y.z.a at all?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That iOS Demo, using the SVGKit.framework for target link library. This libSVGKit-iOS.2.0.0.a actually does nothing than just a placeholder in the xcode project. 😅

See this:
image

@adamgit adamgit merged commit 0d4db53 into SVGKit:2.x Oct 29, 2018
@dreampiggy

dreampiggy commented Oct 29, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I agree that if we could get safely remove the version from the name then it would make the library easier for us to maintain!

This filed is safe. The number is just appended to file name...(This does not compiled to static library binary), but people who build static library by theirself, already know what the version is. So it's no need to add it at all (And cause we manual change that number each time release). I think we can just remove that. (actually this does not cause any issue....file name :))

See the static library from SDWebImage && CocoaLumberjack

image

image

@dreampiggy dreampiggy changed the title WIP:Upgrade the framework version to 2.1.0 Upgrade the framework version to 2.1.0 Oct 29, 2018
@dreampiggy

dreampiggy commented Oct 29, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@adamgit Hi. Good news. It seems that after I sending the email to claim the owner of SVGKit from CocoaPods forum. They add you and me to the CocoaPods trunk owner.

➜ pod trunk info SVGKit

SVGKit
    - Versions:
      - 0.0.1 (2014-05-19 21:43:42 UTC)
      - 1.0 (2014-05-19 21:49:54 UTC)
      - 1.2.0 (2014-07-01 11:48:47 UTC)
    - Owners:
      - Mirko Olsiewicz <mirko.olsiewicz@olsiewicz.de>
      - adam <adam.m.s.martin+cocoapods@gmail.com>
      - Alexandros Salazar <asalazar@weather.com>
      - DreamPiggy <lizhuoli1126@126.com>

Now we can upload the podspec into the trunk. So that all CocoaPods user can use a release version instead of current branch dependency like pod 'SVGKit', :branch => '2.x'

So I'm waiting for your release of SVGKit 2.1.0. After you push a new git tag 2.1.0 (Don't append something like v2.1.0. because CocoaPods && Carthage use the git tag for version number). I can upload the Podspec to the CocoaPods for release.

@dreampiggy dreampiggy deleted the project_release_2.1.0 branch October 29, 2018 16:24
@dreampiggy

dreampiggy commented Oct 30, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@adamgit I upload the 2.0.0 version podspec to the CocoaPod Trunk. CocoaPods user can now use the 2.0.0 tag release in their podfile. https://cocoapods.org/pods/SVGKit

And, is there any pending PR to merge for 2.1.0 release ? Maybe we can start a git tag release. The 2.0.0 can works for Xcode 10 now, but it still seems far away from the current 2.x branch lastest commit.

@adamgit

adamgit commented Oct 30, 2018 via email

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@dreampiggy

dreampiggy commented Oct 30, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Both CocoaPods or Carthage, by default use the git tag for the raw version number.
If you tag a git tag use v2.1.0, people using the semversion will cause issue.

CocoaPods

pod 'SVGKit', '~> v2.1.0' # This will not work.
pod 'SVGKit', '~> 2.1.0' # This works

Carthage

github 'SVGKit/SVGKit', ~> 2.1.0

@adamgit

adamgit commented Oct 30, 2018 via email

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants