Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 23, 2020. It is now read-only.

Add deploy version filter to build.sh #32

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 21, 2017
Merged

Add deploy version filter to build.sh #32

merged 1 commit into from
Apr 21, 2017

Conversation

danslapman
Copy link
Member

@danslapman danslapman commented Apr 21, 2017

Extra condition to disable double artifact publishing and travis crashes

@danslapman danslapman merged commit 7862f6d into scala:master Apr 21, 2017
@lrytz
Copy link
Member

lrytz commented Apr 21, 2017

This should not be necessary, the sbt plugin will make sure that the sbt build exits / aborts when a release build is running and the UseForPublishing flag is false (https://github.com/scala/scala-continuations/blob/master/build.sbt#L10-L20)

@danslapman
Copy link
Member Author

@lrytz I added this because when You push a tag crossScalaVersions are overriden by build.sh. This causes crash in travis because both jdk6 & jdk8 are used un travis: https://github.com/scala/scala-continuations/blob/master/.travis.yml#L17-L18

@danslapman
Copy link
Member Author

@lrytz
Copy link
Member

lrytz commented Apr 21, 2017

@lrytz I added this because when You push a tag crossScalaVersions are overriden by build.sh. This causes crash in travis because both jdk6 & jdk8 are used un travis: https://github.com/scala/scala-continuations/blob/master/.travis.yml#L17-L18

Yes, that part i still need to fix, i'm aware of it. instead of overwriting crossScalaVersions, the script should overwrite scalaVersionsByJvm. But we need to also know the JVM version, so the tags need another #N. I'm working on this, I'll also push it here once it's ready.

@danslapman
Copy link
Member Author

danslapman commented Apr 21, 2017

@lrytz I think adding another #N is more ugly than filtering jdk version somehow

@danslapman
Copy link
Member Author

2.11.x releases always need to be published under jdk6 to ensure compatibility & 2.12.x releases simply can't be built on jdk6

@lrytz
Copy link
Member

lrytz commented Apr 21, 2017

Agree it's more ugly, but also more future-proof. We might not always have a clear distinction, maybe you want to build something on JDK 9 at some point. Anyway it's not a feature for users, just for the maintainers, and it's not that hard to understand either.

@danslapman
Copy link
Member Author

@lrytz sounds reasonable

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants