Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Cache buster failure fallback #1006

Closed
julianlam opened this issue Feb 11, 2014 · 4 comments
Closed

Cache buster failure fallback #1006

julianlam opened this issue Feb 11, 2014 · 4 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@julianlam
Copy link
Member

Currently, cache buster is enabled on non development runs of NodeBB. This cache buster string is generated by running git describe --tags on the system. However, on some systems (Mac OS X), this command errors out with a fatal: No names found, cannot describe anything..

If this happens, we proceed without a cache buster, but we should fallback instead.

If git describe --tags fails for whatever reason (for example, I believe @akhoury's environment does not use git?), we should fall back to a different method of cache buster generation.

My suggestion is to have ./nodebb upgrade touch package.json. Therefore, we can read its' last modified date, and use that timestamp as a cache buster.

@julianlam julianlam added this to the 0.3.2 milestone Feb 11, 2014
@julianlam julianlam self-assigned this Feb 11, 2014
@akhoury
Copy link
Member

akhoury commented Feb 11, 2014

neato ! i like the touch package.json idea

@psychobunny
Copy link
Contributor

nice touch.
On 2014-02-11 6:31 PM, "Aziz Khoury" notifications@github.com wrote:

neato ! i like the touch package.json idea

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/1006#issuecomment-34821872
.

@julianlam
Copy link
Member Author

#iseewhatyoudidthere

@akhoury
Copy link
Member

akhoury commented Feb 13, 2014

thanks

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants