This is more of a design discussion rather than a problem, although I think the current behavior is not ideal.
From the FAQ:
Scala Steward first proposes an update to the latest patch version at the same minor and major version. If the dependency is already on the latest patch version, it proposes an update to the latest minor version at the same major version.
Say a library a project depends on is at version X.Y.Z. In the past, Scala Steward has opened a PR to update from X.Y.Z to X.Y.(Z+1), and it was closed for some reason (a bug in X.Y.(Z+1), for instance). After X.Y.(Z+1), the next library update is X.(Y+1).0. From this point on, Scala Steward seems to always do:
INFO Process update yourpackage : X.Y.Z -> X.Y.(Z+1)
INFO PR https://github.com/org/repo/pull/nr is closed
It attempts to update to the latest patch version, which is coherent, finds a matching closed PR and skips it, which is coherent. But this means this dependency will forever be outdated. Am I missing something?
This is more of a design discussion rather than a problem, although I think the current behavior is not ideal.
From the FAQ:
Say a library a project depends on is at version X.Y.Z. In the past, Scala Steward has opened a PR to update from X.Y.Z to X.Y.(Z+1), and it was closed for some reason (a bug in X.Y.(Z+1), for instance). After X.Y.(Z+1), the next library update is X.(Y+1).0. From this point on, Scala Steward seems to always do:
It attempts to update to the latest patch version, which is coherent, finds a matching closed PR and skips it, which is coherent. But this means this dependency will forever be outdated. Am I missing something?