WIP - Update formula to follow template guidelines #54
Conversation
docs/CONTRIBUTING.rst
Outdated
|
|
||
| ... | ||
|
|
||
| BREAKING CHANGE: With the removal of all of the `.sls` files under |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Its unclear to me if template should be renamed to packages in these contrib docs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Neither to me. Changing it, jic.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@noelmcloughlin @javierbertoli Across all semantic-release PRs, we've just left this as template, in order to minimise the number of changes as much as possible. It's not necessary here and it ends up leading to more false positives when diffing over time. Do you mind changing this back?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM. thanks @javierbertoli
Will you be splitting states into install.sls and clean.sls states for each package type (pkg, gem, pip, etc) in a future PR?
javierbertoli
changed the title
javierbertoli
force-pushed
the
master
branch
2 times, most recently
from
ba9291e
to
6fde660
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A couple of inline comments and a few more here.
- Commit message formatting so that it gets included in the
Changelog:Update Debian family to require python3-pip instead of python-pip
- Travis errors:
- Initial version number discrepancies (we need to decide the right way forward):
- Comparative spreadsheet suggests
v0.7.0-- which I've used for the release at https://github.com/saltstack-formulas/packages-formula/releases/tag/v0.7.0 - Current
CHANGELOG.rstgoes up tov0.1.0-- this file should be merged into the new changelog once it's automatically created FORMULAfile containsv0.8.1-- but this will get overwritten, in any case
- Comparative spreadsheet suggests
docs/CONTRIBUTING.rst
Outdated
|
|
||
| ... | ||
|
|
||
| BREAKING CHANGE: With the removal of all of the `.sls` files under |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@noelmcloughlin @javierbertoli Across all semantic-release PRs, we've just left this as template, in order to minimise the number of changes as much as possible. It's not necessary here and it ends up leading to more false positives when diffing over time. Do you mind changing this back?
docs/README.rst
Outdated
|
|
||
| .. contents:: | ||
| :local: | ||
| :local: | ||
|
|
||
| ``packages`` | ||
| ------------ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All of the states mentioned under Available states will need to use ^ as the heading symbol, otherwise they're not indented under the table of contents, as shown when viewing the current file:
|
@javierbertoli I've added four commits to this PR in my own fork, to test out This includes the fixes I mentioned above inline and also gets the Debian test run working again by updating the Let me know if you want any/all of those commits added to this PR. |
|
@javierbertoli #61 has been merged, so feel free to introduce your customisations from this PR on top of it. |
No description provided.