Yeah the first fork releases I had created didn't have the -1 and we started to follow the -N convention from the second fork releases. This one didn't have a second release yet, so I think we should add the -N starting from the next release as well.

Yeah the first fork releases I had created didn't have the -1 and we started to follow the -N convention from the second fork releases. This one didn't have a second release yet, so I think we should add the -N starting from the next release as well.

I've just added the -N in this commit.

Just to note though this repo doesn't have a 0.8.8-wp-1 release yet.
Also we might need to re-pack the tarball with npm pack so it has the correct package.json and filename.

Just to note though this repo doesn't have a 0.8.8-wp-1 release yet.
Also we might need to re-pack the tarball with npm pack so it has the correct package.json and filename.

Done!

I also committed the package-lock.json file, although I noticed that on the other forks we didn't 🤔 , should we?

I'm not sure if it's taken into consideration during Gutenberg's npm install, maybe it could cause multiple versions of a certain package being installed to match the ones package-lock.json or maybe not :)

I'm not sure if it's taken into consideration during Gutenberg's npm install, maybe it could cause multiple versions of a certain package being installed to match the ones package-lock.json or maybe not :)

I see, I'll revert the change then. In this case, I think we should note that changes in the package-lock.json file shouldn't be committed, wdyt?

Yeah, I think that's closer to the current behaviour on Gutenberg CI, but again I'm not sure, it could also be just fine 🙂