Yank some versions of OptimizationBase

[gdalle]

This PR yanks three consecutive versions of OptimizationBase (v0.0.6, v0.0.7, v1.0.0) because they incorrectly promised compatibility with ADTypes v1.

Question: is this necessary, or would a patch release be enough? My fear is that the patch release v0.0.8 is incompatible with v0.0.7, and so some people would not automatically get it (due to the double leading zero). Am I reading that correctly?

See also:

• Current state not compatible with ADTypes v1 despite compat bounds SciML/OptimizationBase.jl#44
• Backport #2719 to MTK v8 SciML/ModelingToolkit.jl#2726 (comment)

[devmotion]

See https://github.com/JuliaRegistries/General?tab=readme-ov-file#when-is-yanking-a-release-appropriate:

There is however, a special category of bugged releases that can not be resolved by having a patch release. These also may to be resolved by yanking. That special category is when the compat bounds have been set too wide. i.e. say v2.10.0 was released using a feature not on julia v1.6 but the compat entry for julia was not raised in the release. In this case releasing a v2.10.1 with the corrected julia compat would not solve the issue as on julia v1.6 Pkg would still resolve the broken v2.10.0, and as a minor bump, reverting the code changes would not be valid in a patch bump. In this case one may either submit a PR to retroactively adjust the compat bounds of previous versions (best user-facing results, but slow and error-prone to implement) or yank the offending release.

[gdalle]

What do you conclude from this? That yanking is indeed necessary here?

[Vaibhavdixit02]

Yeah based on what David has quoted above it does seem yanking is necessary so I am okay with this

[devmotion]

IMO based on the README yanking would be fine, but (if maintainers - and user? - prefer it) something like #107409 could be an alternative.

[Vaibhavdixit02]

Tbh I had just overlooked the part that you can retrospectively change the compat bounds. I don't quite get what errors can be expected mentioned there?

[gdalle]

I'm just wary (and I guess David too) because the syntax of compat bounds is slightly harder to get right than just yanked=true

[ChrisRackauckas]

Yank is fine given there are versions before and after. Thanks for going through with this, sorry it took awhile to get to reviewing.