brew-cask: upgrade to 0.60.1 #16699
brew-cask: upgrade to 0.60.1 #16699
Conversation
|
👍 from me. |
|
Pinging @caskroom/maintainers |
adidalal
added
enhancement
awaiting maintainer feedback
|
|
||
| depends_on :ruby => "2.0" | ||
|
|
||
| def install | ||
| (buildpath/"UPGRADE").write <<-EOS.undent | ||
| You should uninstall this formula. Only `brew tap Caskroom/cask` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
“should” → “must”? We want people to really do it, so I wouldn’t object to the more forceful language.
In addition, “Only brew tap Caskroom/cask is required now to stay up-to-date.” could be something like “It is no longer needed to stay up to date, as homebrew takes care of that automatically”. By saying “only brew tap Caskroom/cask is required now to stay up-to-date”, I wonder if some people will regularly try that command to update homebrew-cask. Making clear they must uninstall the formula and need do nothing more is likely a plus.
This because we still receive so many bug reports regarding this latest change (despite plastering information about it all over the place), having a tone of “you must uninstall this because it really isn’t needed, and here’s why” will likely be beneficial.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But I'd feel free to pull as-is and edit locally ( @DomT4 definitely won't mind) if it lets you get it in quicker and save you work.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah. This was more of a suggested fix than a "PR" per se. You can use it if you want to and I'm happy to push changes as desired, but am entirely understanding of the fact it's probably easier for you to push the necessary tweaks on your end and close this PR afterwards and not going to object if you prefer that path.
|
@jawshooah You commented (and I agree) about having a round number for the last release ( |
|
@vitorgalvao Up to you but given this is just a patch around a Homebrew bug in the interests of semver I'd leave it as a |
|
I don't care much about the version tag; not like we've been sticking to semver anyway (plenty of breaking changes in the project's history, not a single major version bump). @vitorgalvao, any objection to me pulling this down, tagging and pushing? |
|
Let me know if you want me to make any changes. |
No objection at all. |
|
Other than the suggested wording changes, it LGTM |
Over at Homebrew we've accidentally caused an edge-case problem for some Caskroom users. We recently merged Homebrew/legacy-homebrew@915ac06d which is much stricter on empty installations, failing during install rather than just shouting about it in the audit. We'd prefer not to revert the change there because it's quite a positive change that's much more obvious about installation problems, given installations shouldn't be empty. There's also the likelihood that if we revert, wait 3 months to add the check back, someone out there will wait 4 months before upgrade and we'll run into this again. However, this causes some issues with Cask because when Mike rewrote the formula he left `def install` an empty hole, which was fine at the time. Anyone who hasn't updated between December 9th 2015 and January 9th 2016 will now run into a fatal error on upgrading the Cask formula, as seen in: Homebrew/legacy-homebrew#47929 I was wondering if the Cask would be kind enough to tag one very last bug fix release, or even retag the existing tag and formula with a similar fix to this. If you're agreed and prefer to do this yourself you can ignore the PR but wanted to explain the background.
|
Made some wording tweaks. |
|
I'm going to keep the wording the same between That is, I'll leave out the mention of |
|
Feel free to make whatever changes you want to to anything I've done here. |
|
Closed in b4c92f3. |
|
Thanks! |
adidalal
removed
the
awaiting maintainer feedback
miccal
removed
core
Over at Homebrew we've accidentally caused an edge-case problem for some Caskroom users. We recently merged Homebrew/legacy-homebrew@915ac06d which is much stricter on empty installations, failing during install rather than just shouting about it in the audit.
We'd prefer not to revert the change there because it's quite a positive change that's much more obvious about installation problems, given installations shouldn't be empty. There's also the likelihood that if we revert, wait 3 months to add the check back, someone out there will wait 4 months before upgrade and we'll run into this again.
However, this causes some issues with Cask because when Mike rewrote the formula he left
def installan empty hole, which was fine at the time. Anyone who hasn't updated between December 9th 2015 and January 9th 2016 will now run into a fatal error on upgrading the Cask formula, as seen in: Homebrew/legacy-homebrew#47929I was wondering if the Cask would be kind enough to tag one very last bug fix release, or even retag the existing tag with a similar fix to this. You may want to do this yourself rather than using this PR; this was an easy way to both explain the problem and propose a fix without sticking a
diffblob in the middle of the text.Obviously, if tested by Travis here this build will likely fail because there is no 0.60.1 tag. Apologies for the accidental mess here. It's one of those things we'll probably get better at if/when we can bring the two projects closer together and do more unified testing.
CC @MikeMcQuaid for thoughts.