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

Prefer "-Dsbt.version=0.13.13" to avoid sbt version issues #56

Closed
ignasi35 opened this issue Mar 22, 2017 · 3 comments
Closed

Prefer "-Dsbt.version=0.13.13" to avoid sbt version issues #56

ignasi35 opened this issue Mar 22, 2017 · 3 comments

Comments

@ignasi35
Copy link
Contributor

When running sbt new lagom/lagom-scala.g8 a version 0.13.13+ of the local sbt launcher is required. This implies we must tell users to upgrade.

Alternatively we could suggest using the command sbt new -Dsbt.version=0.13.13 lagom/lagom-scala.g8 (or lagom-scala.g8), that would also lift the need to bump the version of the user's sbt launcher.

@TimMoore
Copy link

I just wonder whether there are other differences in the launcher script that we're not aware of.

The script repo is here: https://github.com/sbt/sbt-launcher-package/commits/master
It looks like it changes frequently, and unfortunately the repository hasn't been tagged consistently so it's hard to know what version each change first appears in.

My concern is that people will run into bugs that have already been fixed, and we might end up sinking a lot of time into trying to reproduce them before realizing that the problem is caused by an older launch script.

So my vote is to tell users how to check the version and upgrade if necessary.

@rstento
Copy link
Contributor

rstento commented Apr 7, 2017

@TimMoore, we do have the more detailed instructions that tell people how to check the version. (https://www.lagomframework.com/documentation/1.3.x/java/JavaPrereqs.html and https://www.lagomframework.com/documentation/1.3.x/scala/Installation.html) Unfortunately, during the usability tests, even users who visited those pages skipped the step for verifying the version. I think that we've done all we could reasonably do at this point to help new users be successful. But, as you point out, things can always change in dependencies outside of our control. But, I think this issue can be closed now.

thanks!

@TimMoore
Copy link

OK thanks for the comment. This sounds like a good compromise then.

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants