![]() ![]() Please realise the project isn’t done, it should very much be considered an alpha - it’s incomplete and there are many things undocumented, some on purpose. Again, apologies if my comment infuriated you, as it was truly not my intention. I hope my position was a bit clearer this time, and that I haven’t put you off from contributing. We have many precedents on similar Thank you for the contribution. So, should we revert this We should, yes. Soon, when upgrade functionality and appcasts are up-and-running, these will bring advantages that will make versioned downloads better, and then it makes sense to switch. :no_checksum and latest must be used together, or the audit fails.Ĭurrently, here’s where we (somewhat unofficially) stand: latest is at the moment superior to versioned, so it is preferred. It seems to be legal even when the version is not :latest Versions will be more useful when we have upgrade functionality. Like appcasts, they’ll be useful later, and were implemented with the idea of thinking ahead. ![]() It's not clear to me why one would ever bother with the checksum if it's preferably absent! Using latest as the preferred option was the standard at the time, so until a consensus is reached, it makes sense to not change that. The idea of it is exactly to find the best option. As I said, it is an open issue, and it is an open discussion. It also gives pro/con bullet points as to why the reverse might be preferable. ![]() That said, in the interest of clarity, I’ll just point out the answers to your concerns briefly and directly.Īnd the issue gives some pro/con bullet points as to why If that was the case, my apologies, as it was not the intention. Reading your reply, I understand my comment might have sounded a bit rough. Is an arcane, special purpose feature is not at all clear just look at the Work-like normalizing internal data structures or proofreadingĭocumentation-that most projects welcome folks pitching in with. Versioning and checksums looks like the sort of hard-but-desirable grunt :latest, so should someone do a mass edit to remove the checksums?) Preferably absent! (It seems to be legal even when the version is not It's not clear to me why one would ever bother with the checksum if it's To CONTRIBUTING.md along with some language in the version and sha256 Something like the sentence you wrote above could just be added I did a lot of reading in order to come to the wrong conclusion,Īpparently. Instead, "use versions only if no unversioned download is available", it The issue gives some pro/con bullet points as to why. md seems to suggest preferring versions where possible, and git show v1.Read together with CONTRIBUTING.md, the issue seems to say the opposite.ĬONTRIBUTING.git tag -a v1.4 -m 'my version 1.4' create a tag with a description.The "official" documentation regarding tag manipulations in command line is there: The good news is that tag are pulled to you local repository when doing a "sync" or a "pull" from Github Client for MacĪs said, you'll have to go through command lines to manage tags locally The Github website on its side propose not only to retrieve tagged commits, but also show them as releases and propose automaticly generated zip and tar.gz bundles of the related source code. Neither to create them or nor to retrieve them Unfortunately, Github Client for Mac still doesn't handle tags. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |