allow packages to be installed from a tag

[bcoe]

It would be neat if the modules in the list to be smoke-tested could be published to a tag.

This would allow me to publish fixes for yargs to a next tag, so that you can validate that the Canary tests are running appropriately, without having to cut a full release of the project.

[bengl]

You can at least use the sha CLI param (or lookup.json property), but at the moment you still have to change that on each publish.

[gdams]

I'll take a look and see if I can get citgm working with a custom tag if that's what you're asking for

[gibfahn]

I'm pretty sure you can do something like:

{
  "yargs": {
    "master": true,
    "repo": "https://github.com/yargs/yargs",
    "sha": "next"
  }
}

in the lookup.json, or citgm yargs/yargs#next

It shoudn't really be necessary to specify master and repo (we're not actually getting it from master, and the repo should be in the package.json), but that's what seems to work atm.

See #279 (comment)

[MylesBorins]

Perhaps we could rename sha to head and deprecate master.

[gibfahn]

I think "master": true is basically the same "sha": "master", so we could definitely deprecate master. However I prefer sha to head (although maybe commit would be best), as what you provide is a <commit-ish>.

[MylesBorins]

putting on my helmet before going in the bike shed...

isn't whatever reference you are giving the head of the tree you want to use? master, some-branch, Some-Sha are all heads.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[gibfahn]

Sure, but you might just directly pass a commit like cf004c0 that isn't the head of a tree right? Maybe it is, I'm not that familiar with git terminology, but I always thought that HEAD was just the currently checked out commit,

More to the point, if I just saw head as an option in the lookup.json I wouldn't see it as obviously as a reference to a git commit compared to either commit or sha.

[MylesBorins]

we could just support both with an alias. all the things!

…

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017, 5:25 PM Gibson Fahnestock ***@***.***> wrote: Sure, but you might just directly pass a commit like cf004c0 <cf004c0> that isn't the head of a tree right? Maybe it is, I'm not that familiar with git terminology, but I always thought that HEAD was just the currently checked out commit, More to the point, if I just saw head as an option in the lookup.json I wouldn't see it as obviously as a reference to a git commit compared to either commit or sha. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#171 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAecV0iVKmDr1LvXyqUHV2ByKSi1U0B1ks5rRAVkgaJpZM4Jtni7> .

[MylesBorins]

ACTUALLY... a specific sha is not a head... https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Internals-Git-References

[gdams]

@richardlau would you be able to take a look at this when you get a chance ?

[targos]

Closing as I believe the sha option is enough for this.