Runtype compat version policy

[runeh]

In newer runtypes we can use .optional instead of the union of record and nullable record that we currently use. There are also upcoming runtype features in new major versions we might want to use at some point.

What should the compat policy be? If we start using the latest and greatest, anyone generating code would also need to migrate their stuff.

• Target newest runtypes lib
• Target as old as possible that still supports the features we need
• Configurable. Take an option and generate different outputs
• Something else?

[simenandre]

Very interesting question. I think maybe it's best for us to generate as old as possible, but if there are things that are very useful, we can bump the runtypes version? Personally, I think maybe the .optional are one of those things that are useful. At least for readability?

On that note, we should probably explicitly require a version of runtypes? Maybe as a peer-dependency?

[haradzienski]

I like @cobraz's point on keeping runtypes as a peer dependency.