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

Customize template branch when upgrading extension #9630

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jan 19, 2021

Conversation

fcollonval
Copy link
Member

Code changes

New option --branch for the jupyterlab.upgrade_extension script to specify the template branch to be checked out.

User-facing changes

New option --branch for the jupyterlab.upgrade_extension script

Backwards-incompatible changes

N/A

@jupyterlab-dev-mode
Copy link

Thanks for making a pull request to JupyterLab!

To try out this branch on binder, follow this link: Binder

@jtpio
Copy link
Member

jtpio commented Jan 18, 2021

Thanks! This should make the upgrade script more flexible in the long run 👍

@@ -13,14 +13,16 @@
raise RuntimeError("Please install cookiecutter")


COOKIECUTTER_BRANCH = "3.0"
DEFAULT_COOKIECUTTER_BRANCH = "3.0"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Wondering whether this should default to the master branch of the cookiecutter, which targets the latest stable version of JupyterLab?

Staying on 3.0 sounds fine, but will require manually backporting iterations on the cookiecutter repo to its 3.0 branch.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was hesitating to switch to master too. But I think pinning the version is better to ensure consistency for the user. If it run jupyterlab.upgrade_extension script from JupyterLab 3, it should not see upgrade of JupyterLab v4 (when it will come).

To ease maintenance on the cookiecutter project, a solution may be to change the default branch to follow the one of the current major JupyterLab (and therefore drop master) - albeit this is unconventional.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To ease maintenance on the cookiecutter project, a solution may be to change the default branch to follow the one of the current major JupyterLab (and therefore drop master) - albeit this is unconventional.

Yes this is what the jupyterlab_apod repo does: https://github.com/jupyterlab/jupyterlab_apod

@blink1073 blink1073 added this to the 3.0 milestone Jan 19, 2021
Copy link
Member

@blink1073 blink1073 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

@blink1073 blink1073 merged commit 58d4f6d into master Jan 19, 2021
@jtpio jtpio deleted the fcollonval-patch-1 branch January 19, 2021 16:23
@github-actions github-actions bot added the status:resolved-locked Closed issues are locked after 30 days inactivity. Please open a new issue for related discussion. label Jul 19, 2021
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jul 19, 2021
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
maintenance status:resolved-locked Closed issues are locked after 30 days inactivity. Please open a new issue for related discussion.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants