feat: remove v1 models #133
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was basically the same as the other class, just namespaced in v0
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was basically the same as the other class, just namespaced in v0
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@davinchia I'm not sure if getting rid of the "v0" concept altogether could have any bad downstream impact?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was moving everything towards versioned packages to make the next time we do this easy, so removing this now would have impact (all the Platform usages are with V0 now). Can we remove the non-V0 file instead? Otherwise I'm also happy to do this on Tuesday if it's not blocking and you can wait.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I removed the non-V0 file initially, but then the build task broke. Didn't dig in to it too much, so definitely happy if you want to take a look at it on Tuesday 🙂 I'm not blocked on this
davinchia
changed the title
|
I'm going to do a minor bump here to represent a major bump as we still on sem-var 0. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Duplicate file in the V0 folder.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Duplicate file in the V0 folder.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These are actually part of the V0 spec so moving into this folder.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These are actually part of the V0 spec so moving into this folder.
Remove all mentions of non-v0 protocol models to simplify things. Final clean up of airbytehq/airbyte-protocol#133. Co-authored-by: Airbyte Engineering <[email protected]>
2 participants
The v1 protocol effort stalled, but we still have the v1
airbyte_protocol.yamlfile in the repo. This is confusing, because it's unclear where updates to the protocol should be made. Discussed with @davinchia here that we should just remove the v1 file and fix forward any potential fallout.