Skip to content

Conversation

@martin-swift
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

Copy link
Contributor

@jbangelo jbangelo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think the package-lock.json or docs/sbp.pdf files should have been changed by this?

Copy link
Contributor

@silverjam silverjam left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please revert docs/sbp.pdf and package-lock.json then we're good to go.

@martin-swift
Copy link
Contributor Author

ok; what is package-lock.json?

@silverjam
Copy link
Contributor

@martin-swift it's the javascript package "lock" for npm, in order to create reproducible builds, npm "locks" the packages it actually installs with this file. So, we should only commit this file if we add new deps to package.json (the npm package spec).

@martin-swift
Copy link
Contributor Author

@martin-swift it's the javascript package "lock" for npm, in order to create reproducible builds, npm "locks" the packages it actually installs with this file. So, we should only commit this file if we add new deps to package.json (the npm package spec).

So what changes it?

@silverjam
Copy link
Contributor

@martin-swift when we gen javascript, we invoke npm, it looks like npm (because it's newer than when this package-lock.json was generated) is adjusting the syntax of the lock file to be more modern. At some point we should commit these syntax changes with a recent version of npm, but probably as a separate PR?

@martin-swift martin-swift merged commit 715cb40 into master Nov 4, 2019
@martin-swift martin-swift deleted the martin/rust-python3-bugfix branch November 4, 2019 23:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants