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

++ should only aggregate compatible projects #4

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Feb 26, 2015

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@jroper
Member

jroper commented Feb 26, 2015

This PR depends on #3 being merged first.

When a user does:

++2.11.5 compile

Currently we build all projects with 2.11.5, regardless of whether they support it or not. This change means that in that situation, we only build projects that are configured to cross build against a Scala version that is binary compatible with 2.11.5.

Of course, another way to achieve this would be to first switch to a dummy project that only aggregated projects that support that version, but this negates that need to have such a dummy project.

Of course, this doesn't work if you:

++2.11.5
compile

But it's convenient. If a project is specified, then it builds it regardless of the support - perhaps we could make that an error though.

@eed3si9n

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@eed3si9n

eed3si9n Feb 26, 2015

Member

This reminds me of similar idea I had, which is stricter version of ++ that only changes the Scala version only if it's listed in crossScalaVersions. This won't allow you to experiment with random version, but it'd be safer behavior during cross building.

Should we make a new operator for that like +++?

Member

eed3si9n commented Feb 26, 2015

This reminds me of similar idea I had, which is stricter version of ++ that only changes the Scala version only if it's listed in crossScalaVersions. This won't allow you to experiment with random version, but it'd be safer behavior during cross building.

Should we make a new operator for that like +++?

@jroper

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jroper

jroper Feb 26, 2015

Member

Would the new operator be the stricter one, or the one that let you experiment?

Member

jroper commented Feb 26, 2015

Would the new operator be the stricter one, or the one that let you experiment?

@eed3si9n

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@eed3si9n

eed3si9n Feb 26, 2015

Member

If sbt-doge implementation eventually merges to sbt 1.0 or something it might be better to keep ++ the experimental one, and +++ or something the stricter one? I am open to ideas here.

Member

eed3si9n commented Feb 26, 2015

If sbt-doge implementation eventually merges to sbt 1.0 or something it might be better to keep ++ the experimental one, and +++ or something the stricter one? I am open to ideas here.

@jroper

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jroper

jroper Feb 26, 2015

Member

Sounds fine to me.

Member

jroper commented Feb 26, 2015

Sounds fine to me.

@eed3si9n

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@eed3si9n

eed3si9n Feb 26, 2015

Member

Tentatively we can call it omg operator.

Member

eed3si9n commented Feb 26, 2015

Tentatively we can call it omg operator.

@jroper

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jroper

jroper Feb 26, 2015

Member

I called it the plz operator, and I also made it switch back to the old scala versions after running.

Member

jroper commented Feb 26, 2015

I called it the plz operator, and I also made it switch back to the old scala versions after running.

@eed3si9n

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@eed3si9n

eed3si9n Feb 26, 2015

Member

awesome

Member

eed3si9n commented Feb 26, 2015

awesome

eed3si9n added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 26, 2015

Merge pull request #4 from jroper/cross-build-only-compatible
++ should only aggregate compatible projects

@eed3si9n eed3si9n merged commit 794a2d1 into sbt:master Feb 26, 2015

@jroper jroper deleted the jroper:cross-build-only-compatible branch Feb 26, 2015

@jroper jroper referenced this pull request Oct 25, 2017

Closed

Cross Build for SBT 1.0.0 #18

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment