Cannot use master branch for local override #1957
Comments
I should note that I'm using version 1.2.0.pre.1. |
Hmm... I haven't seem that before. Your local copy is a checked out git repo, right? On May 30, 2012, at 8:08 AM, Nathaniel Talbottreply@reply.github.com wrote:
|
Yes, local copy is just a normal git repo:
|
That is really, really odd. We're thinking of possibly removing the branch requirement for local overrides, and I'm guessing that would solve things? Without a solid repro of this case, I'm not sure what to suggest. |
Yah, I tend to think removing the requirement is better in general. I'll try to get a reproduction for the issue, though, just in case. |
OK, steps to reproduce:
Gemfile: gem "test2", git: "/Users/ntalbott/tmp/test2"
Gemfile: gem "test2", git: "/Users/ntalbott/tmp/test2", branch: "master"
Good news: the workaround is as simple as removing Gemfile.lock and re-bundling. But if you decide to keep the branch requirement, you'll probably want to fix this edge case to smooth the path for upgraders. |
Ah, yup! Thanks for figuring that out. I suspect we're going to take out the branch requirement before final. |
Did the branch requirement get pulled for release? The docs still mention it, so it's easier to use a manual override still. |
This seems like a totally weird requirement to me but whatever. The current docs say to use:
Not sure why that isn't just the default but I'll fight that fight another day. |
I'm trying to use a local override, and it's almost working. I have the config set:
When I try to bundle, I get an error about the branch not being specified:
Which makes sense, except I do have the branch specified, it just happens to be master:
Note that if I change the branch to something else, I get a different error message, so I know my Gemfile change is being picked up:
Is it expected behavior for
master
to not be a valid branch for local overrides?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: