Add examples to roll-forward table #46238
Merged
+18
−6
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
dotnet-policy-service
bot
added
the
community-contribution
adegeo
requested changes
Jun 16, 2025
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for this submission! I've included some suggestions. @richlander can you validate how .NET roll forward currently works?
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Summary
The wording of the table is currently ambiguous, so I've added more words around it and also added an examples table.
I thought carefully about the table, but I'm a) not certain of the actual intended semantics, and b) not certain I got the table right even given the semantics. So please don't assume I know what I'm doing here.
As a check, I asked Claude 3.7 Sonnet to write the same table, but it resolved the ambiguity in the original docs differently from the way I did; it picked
8.2.0rather than8.2.3in the left-hand column, because it resolved the ambiguity in the direction of "lowest patch number" rather than "highest patch number". I only went with "highest patch number" because of the stated downside ofDisable, preventing roll-forward to latest patch versions.Internal previews