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

Allow Pack to pin only project references (Pull Request) #1649

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Aug 4, 2016

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@jam40jeff
Contributor

jam40jeff commented Apr 27, 2016

See #1648.

@jam40jeff jam40jeff changed the title from Issue 1648 - Allow Pack to pin only project references to Allow Pack to pin only project references (Pull Request) Apr 27, 2016

@tsibelman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tsibelman

tsibelman Jul 25, 2016

Contributor

Hi @jam40jeff It will be very helpful for as if you could finish this feature.

Contributor

tsibelman commented Jul 25, 2016

Hi @jam40jeff It will be very helpful for as if you could finish this feature.

@jam40jeff

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jam40jeff

jam40jeff Jul 25, 2016

Contributor

I have completed this feature and am using it in my own custom build of Paket. However, I was unable to get the pull request approved. Adding another voice of support to this issue can't hurt though. I still believe it is a very valuable option and would like to see it included in Paket so I don't have to keep synchronizing my custom build with each release.

Contributor

jam40jeff commented Jul 25, 2016

I have completed this feature and am using it in my own custom build of Paket. However, I was unable to get the pull request approved. Adding another voice of support to this issue can't hurt though. I still believe it is a very valuable option and would like to see it included in Paket so I don't have to keep synchronizing my custom build with each release.

@tsibelman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tsibelman

tsibelman Jul 25, 2016

Contributor

Why this pull request was not aproved ? I do not see anything here, did you got some feedback by some other chanell ?

Contributor

tsibelman commented Jul 25, 2016

Why this pull request was not aproved ? I do not see anything here, did you got some feedback by some other chanell ?

@jam40jeff

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jam40jeff

jam40jeff Jul 25, 2016

Contributor

The discussion on #1648 is the reasoning for the pull request not being approved. I implemented the simple switch which allows you to use exact versioning for project reference dependencies rather than minimum versioning. The rest of that discussion was about how to make it so other schemes could be used, but I still think that would just complicate things without adding much benefit.

The two options (exact with this switch, minimum without it) are the only two I have needed. I use minimum when I am guaranteeing backwards compatibility between projects within a solution and exact when I am not.

Contributor

jam40jeff commented Jul 25, 2016

The discussion on #1648 is the reasoning for the pull request not being approved. I implemented the simple switch which allows you to use exact versioning for project reference dependencies rather than minimum versioning. The rest of that discussion was about how to make it so other schemes could be used, but I still think that would just complicate things without adding much benefit.

The two options (exact with this switch, minimum without it) are the only two I have needed. I use minimum when I am guaranteeing backwards compatibility between projects within a solution and exact when I am not.

@tsibelman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tsibelman

tsibelman Jul 25, 2016

Contributor

I read the disscusion but fail to see anyone objecting to this change, @forki can you tell us if you see somee problem with this ?

Contributor

tsibelman commented Jul 25, 2016

I read the disscusion but fail to see anyone objecting to this change, @forki can you tell us if you see somee problem with this ?

@forki

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@forki

forki Jul 29, 2016

Member

can you please rebase this. Then I will review. Thx

Member

forki commented Jul 29, 2016

can you please rebase this. Then I will review. Thx

@forki

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@forki

forki Aug 4, 2016

Member

thanks!

Member

forki commented Aug 4, 2016

thanks!

@forki forki merged commit bc2e69e into fsprojects:master Aug 4, 2016

2 checks passed

continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
@tsibelman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tsibelman

tsibelman Aug 4, 2016

Contributor

Thank you guys, you made my day.

Contributor

tsibelman commented Aug 4, 2016

Thank you guys, you made my day.

@jam40jeff jam40jeff deleted the jam40jeff:issue-1648 branch Aug 5, 2016

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