- cross-posted to:
- linux@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- linux@programming.dev
You must log in or register to comment.
As the title might appear a bit alarmist, saving a click “For most users, there’s nothing to worry about. However, if you’ve manually set a custom relative path for “IMMICH_MEDIA_LOCATION” in your “.env” file, you’ll need to convert it to an absolute path. For example, “IMMICH_MEDIA_LOCATION=./my-library” must become “IMMICH_MEDIA_LOCATION=/usr/src/app/my-library“.”
I wouldn’t think this would cause any data loss either, it just wouldn’t find your media or it would throw an error. Very alarmist indeed.
I’m not sure it’s alarmist; I think this is all a breaking change is.
Anybody updating needs to know their existing config may not longer be supported. Even if the consequences are small, even if not every user will be affected, this update will break some previously acceptable configs. I think that warrants a heads up and a reminder to read the release notes.
Also, Immich warns to read the change log every time you update, because it’s still under very active development.
How is it alarmist? Those are breaking changes that require attention
The new beta timeline is sooo smooth! I finally don’t hate scrolling back to find a specific old photo. The scrolling performance feels completely native to me now.
Actual release notes: https://github.com/immich-app/immich/releases/tag/v1.136.0
The Android app finally does IO on a background thread. 🫠
The one feature I’ve been waiting on for a while is better face recognition in videos, not only the first frame. When/if this happens I will start using it. They’re discussing it for quite a while though, afraid it won’t happen.
For what it is worth, I upgraded without changing anything and it worked perfectly.
I’m still using photoprism. Or sort of rarely using it. So how’s immich in comparison now?
I’ve been meaning to give this a try on my Synology.
But breaking changes in a point release? Not cool.
Tbf this is actually version v1.136 .0 and
Disclaimer
- ⚠️ The project is under very active development.
- ⚠️ Expect bugs and breaking changes.
- ⚠️ Do not use the app as the only way to store your photos and videos.
- ⚠️ Always follow 3-2-1 backup plan for your precious photos and videos!
Personally I’m waiting for the day it comes out of “under active development” state so that I can migrate from NextCloud to it.
A breaking change should have been 2.0, not a new 1.<minor> release.
It should still be 0.<minor> if they’ve not reached the stability for keeping backwards compatibly in all 1.x releases.
To quote them:
We are still in a fast development cycle, so the versioning is to keep track of the progress/iteration of the project. When a stable release is reached (2?), then any breaking change would require more proper major version changes
Yes, I understand they have declared that. Their declaration does not, however, negate the common semantic versioning standards, found at semver.org. These common standards are significant for admins running shared systems where they automatic upgrade processes based on common semantic versioning rules. The software will stabilize and they will adopt a more stringent policy. But they should still be releasing 0.x versions since they’ve not yet reached it.
I was going to say you are wrong about semver but you are correct that it should simply not be version 1 yet.
To quote semver.org: “Major version zero (0.y.z) is for initial development. Anything MAY change at any time. The public API SHOULD NOT be considered stable.”
If they had just done that, their disclaimer would be implied. Once it is 1.0, breaking changes require a major version change. That seems like reasonable policy to me.
That said, I upgraded without issue.
🍻
From the release notes:
one of the last breaking changes we want to make before reaching the stable release milestone
So you’ll probably want to wait until they do a stable release.
Yes indeed. 🙂
The “breaking change” did not break anything for me. As noted, you have to have a specific and non-default configuration for their to be a problem.
It’s a full release, not a point/patch release, the title just doesn’t show the second .0. They use semantic versioning so it’s major.minor.patch.
It’s also a very minor change and only affects a single configuration property and only people who used relative paths in that property.
Breaking changes should warrant a 2.0 version, not a 1.minor version.
Edit: I am basing my comments on https://semver.org/ guidelines
It’s not that kind of breaking change. It’s a change that won’t affect most people. Only those who chose to use a custom location for their media location and chose to set that to a relative path instead of an absolute one which caused the application to have trouble resolving the paths. The change eliminates a bug by preventing people from doing something that was not intended to be supported. So it’s not a “breaking” change necessarily in the sense that they are changing documented functionality. They are eliminating a way that people can misconfigure the application which may in some cases cause the application to break if someone successfully configured the application in this unintended way.
