Skip to content
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

Switch to main and release branches #145

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 8, 2023

Conversation

guyonvarch
Copy link
Member

@guyonvarch guyonvarch commented Dec 8, 2023

This permits to simplify branch management.

@guyonvarch guyonvarch added the reviewable Ready for initial or iterative review label Dec 8, 2023
build Outdated
@@ -3,20 +3,14 @@ set -euo pipefail

TARGET="${1:-default}"

scripts/info-branch-commit
export readonly TARGET=$(scripts/option-prompt "Select a target" vm develop validation master lab-key shed-key stuck default)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should we rename default to all?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

all is quite good, but maybe not as precise to default, as it picks default values as well. Do you think it’s still relevant with the last change reverting to previous usage?

build Outdated
@@ -3,20 +3,14 @@ set -euo pipefail

TARGET="${1:-default}"

scripts/info-branch-commit
export readonly TARGET=$(scripts/option-prompt "Select a target" vm develop validation master lab-key shed-key stuck default)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I am not necessarily against an interactive script, but I wouldn't want that to be the only option, because

  • I want to be able to script things,
  • I want to be able to run a combined command like ./build vm; result/bin/run-in-vm from history without having to type extra stuff into the terminal.

It would be fine for ./build to prompt a target if none is given, I think?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree, this would not be convenient for me as well, reverting to previous usage in 9048ca6.

Adding info & confirm safeguards for develop, validation and master builds.

Only add info & confirmation steps for builds on:

- develop,
- validation,
- release.
Copy link
Member

@knuton knuton left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good for me now 👍

@knuton knuton merged commit b7e6f1a into dividat:develop Dec 8, 2023
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
reviewable Ready for initial or iterative review
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants