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

JBIDE-13671 enable jgit timestamps using no... #223

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

nickboldt
Copy link
Member

JBIDE-13671 enable jgit timestamps using no BUILD_ALIAS of distinction between ci builds vs. local builds; also omit BUILD_NUMBER

…n between ci builds vs. local builds; also omit BUILD_NUMBER
@mickaelistria
Copy link
Contributor

Seems good to me.

@dgolovin
Copy link
Member

This seems to work until we shift parent pom version to next one. That will trigger qualifier change everywhere, because of requirement for every module to update reverence to latest parent pom.

@nickboldt
Copy link
Member Author

Why would it trigger qualifier change if none of the plugins or features are changed, only the root pom and the all-tests/pom.xml ?

@mickaelistria
Copy link
Contributor

Nick is right. The default behavior (or at least the one we expect and that it's used by Eclipse Platform) looks at the last commit that affected the current module, so if only the version change in some parent pom. it's not cascaded to module.
However, I believe we should also configure this timestamp plugin to exclude even the current pom.xml, like http://git.eclipse.org/c/platform/eclipse.platform.releng.aggregator.git/tree/eclipse-platform-parent/pom.xml#n554

@dgolovin
Copy link
Member

I looked at arquillian and saw latest commit, but didn't check what was actually changed and turned out it was version bump.

I am wrong - you are right 👍

@nickboldt
Copy link
Member Author

Suggestion to exclude pom.xml captured in this PR: #225

If you guys feel we should do this, I'm all for it. @mickaelistria feel free to apply this tomorrow when you arrive at work, or we can discuss it further.

@mickaelistria
Copy link
Contributor

@nickboldt this commit has exact same label as the currently on master? Should I merge it anyway? Can you set a more accurate and precise commit message?

@nickboldt
Copy link
Member Author

Merged already as 86fa741

@nickboldt nickboldt closed this Jun 30, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
3 participants