Update to v0.14.0-rc3 #6
Conversation
kl0tl
left a comment
kl0tl
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn’t we also upgrade the bower dependencies to master?
Hm... I guess it doesn't hurt. Who knows. It might be required for those who will still decide to use bower when they update their library? |
Yea, we should upgrade the bower dependencies to master for all of these |
|
Just waiting for CI now. |
|
I think the same reasoning for only including bower.json in the core libraries applies here: I don't think we gain much from having both bower and spago configurations in the repo. It just means there's two workflows we need to maintain rather than one. We shouldn't keep two sets of dependencies in the repo if we're not maintaining them both, so if we want to maintain both bower and spago configurations here then we should ensure both of them are tested by CI. However, you don't need to have a spago.dhall in a package's repo in order to consume that package with spago, so from my point of view I think it's preferable to only support bower for people working on the package. |
|
Let's have this discussion on purescript/purescript#3942 |
|
Sounds good. I'll wait for you to post there. |
4 participants
Backlinking to purescript/purescript#3942