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

Changed default version setting to 0.1.0-SNAPSHOT #3577

Merged
merged 4 commits into from Sep 27, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@laughedelic
Member

laughedelic commented Sep 25, 2017

Fixes #3467

Changed default version setting to make it compatible with semantic versioning.

Changed default version setting to 0.1.0-SNAPSHOT
To make it compatible with semantic versioning. Fixes #3467.
@dwijnand

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dwijnand
Member

dwijnand commented Sep 25, 2017

Thanks, @laughedelic!

@laughedelic

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@laughedelic

laughedelic Sep 25, 2017

Member

I just noticed that issue and thought that it's a 5 seconds fix 😄

I'm a bit confused about this CI build thing: am I supposed to push the Build button or the maintainers here? And should it really build all modules?

Member

laughedelic commented Sep 25, 2017

I just noticed that issue and thought that it's a 5 seconds fix 😄

I'm a bit confused about this CI build thing: am I supposed to push the Build button or the maintainers here? And should it really build all modules?

@dwijnand

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dwijnand

dwijnand Sep 25, 2017

Member

The validator isn't required. We use it when we want to check impact. For instance if there's some enthusiastic refactoring in sbt/zinc we validate that it doesn't break any of sbt/sbt's scripted tests. For this I'm happy to just see Travis CI go green, and meanwhile give @eed3si9n a chance to weigh in.

Member

dwijnand commented Sep 25, 2017

The validator isn't required. We use it when we want to check impact. For instance if there's some enthusiastic refactoring in sbt/zinc we validate that it doesn't break any of sbt/sbt's scripted tests. For this I'm happy to just see Travis CI go green, and meanwhile give @eed3si9n a chance to weigh in.

@laughedelic

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@laughedelic

laughedelic Sep 25, 2017

Member

OK. Thanks for explaining.

Member

laughedelic commented Sep 25, 2017

OK. Thanks for explaining.

@typesafe-tools

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@typesafe-tools

typesafe-tools Sep 25, 2017

The validator has checked the following projects against Scala 2.12,
tested using dbuild, projects built on top of each other.

Project Reference Commit
sbt pull/3577/head 632b14c
zinc 1.x sbt/zinc@b63e9c6
io 1.x sbt/io@62004b2
librarymanagement 1.x sbt/librarymanagement@293666f
util 1.x sbt/util@be73dc0
website 1.x

The result is: FAILED
(restart)

typesafe-tools commented Sep 25, 2017

The validator has checked the following projects against Scala 2.12,
tested using dbuild, projects built on top of each other.

Project Reference Commit
sbt pull/3577/head 632b14c
zinc 1.x sbt/zinc@b63e9c6
io 1.x sbt/io@62004b2
librarymanagement 1.x sbt/librarymanagement@293666f
util 1.x sbt/util@be73dc0
website 1.x

The result is: FAILED
(restart)

@eed3si9n

overall LGTM

Could you add a release note under 1.1.0 in the style of https://github.com/sbt/sbt/blob/1.x/notes/1.0.2/sample.md, plz

@laughedelic

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@laughedelic

laughedelic Sep 25, 2017

Member

@eed3si9n sure. Done in e99aa6d.

Why do you keep now release notes in nested folders and separate files? Do you use some new cool tool for aggregating them and publishing?

Member

laughedelic commented Sep 25, 2017

@eed3si9n sure. Done in e99aa6d.

Why do you keep now release notes in nested folders and separate files? Do you use some new cool tool for aggregating them and publishing?

@eed3si9n

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@eed3si9n

eed3si9n Sep 26, 2017

Member

Why do you keep now release notes in nested folders and separate files? Do you use some new cool tool for aggregating them and publishing?

This is to avoid merge conflict when we have multiple PRs pending. The release note is hand-crafted, and I think it makes our release notes pretty good.

Member

eed3si9n commented Sep 26, 2017

Why do you keep now release notes in nested folders and separate files? Do you use some new cool tool for aggregating them and publishing?

This is to avoid merge conflict when we have multiple PRs pending. The release note is hand-crafted, and I think it makes our release notes pretty good.

@laughedelic

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@laughedelic

laughedelic Sep 26, 2017

Member

The Travis failure is legitimate. Please update /sbt/src/sbt-test/actions/package-delete-target/test@9d8a041

Done: 402b9ef

This is to avoid merge conflict when we have multiple PRs pending.

Makes sense.

The release note is hand-crafted, and I think it makes our release notes pretty good.

They are good indeed 👍

Member

laughedelic commented Sep 26, 2017

The Travis failure is legitimate. Please update /sbt/src/sbt-test/actions/package-delete-target/test@9d8a041

Done: 402b9ef

This is to avoid merge conflict when we have multiple PRs pending.

Makes sense.

The release note is hand-crafted, and I think it makes our release notes pretty good.

They are good indeed 👍

@eed3si9n

LGTM
Thanks for the contribution.

@dwijnand dwijnand merged commit 9f27590 into sbt:1.x Sep 27, 2017

1 check passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details

@dwijnand dwijnand added this to the 1.1.0 milestone Sep 27, 2017

@laughedelic laughedelic deleted the laughedelic:patch-1 branch Sep 27, 2017

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