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

Revisiting SBT caching, the stupid/simple way - keep it all in memory. #94

wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master


None yet
3 participants

ctb commented Jan 4, 2017

  • Is it mergeable?
  • make test Did it pass the tests?
  • make coverage Is the new code covered?
  • Did it change the command-line interface? Only additions are allowed
    without a major version increment. Changing file formats also requires a
    major version number increment.
  • Was a spellchecker run on the source code and documentation after
    changes were made?

@ctb ctb referenced this pull request Jan 4, 2017


What's up with the SBT cache branch? #93

0 of 5 tasks complete

This comment has been minimized.

codecov-io commented Jan 4, 2017

Current coverage is 77.42% (diff: 100%)

Merging #94 into master will increase coverage by 0.04%

@@             master        #94   diff @@
  Files            17         17          
  Lines          2374       2379     +5   
  Methods          48         48          
  Messages          0          0          
  Branches        102        102          
+ Hits           1837       1842     +5   
  Misses          510        510          
  Partials         27         27          

Powered by Codecov. Last update 2416946...f4f0865

@ctb ctb closed this Apr 9, 2017


This comment has been minimized.


ctb commented Apr 9, 2017

Should have been fixed by #85.

@luizirber luizirber added the sbt label May 4, 2017

@luizirber luizirber deleted the sbt_cache_ctb branch Oct 30, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment