-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 275
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
2.12 update #428
2.12 update #428
Conversation
* jmh normalizes jar timestamps build_is_identical e2e test spits out differences in md5 * change jar creator to default to normalizing timestamps
build_is_identical stabilization
…lbuild#409) When executing non-locally, the wrong version of Java would be used, referencing a path that didn't exist. This change adds the _java_runtime attribute to have to locate the java runtime on the machine where the Scala code is being executed, and selects the correct configuration for the host_javabase. As a minor cleanup, this also removes the now no-longer-necessary _java attribute. TESTED=Ran unit tests and also ran a custom Scala unit test through: previously, the Scala unit test failed with an incorrect java path error, now it passes. Change-Id: I9c2829bded04ec2d9d014094bd9e72cd984fe6e6
The IntelliJ plugin assumes that source_jar and source_jars are both present on the jars struct. This sets those to empty values, so the IntelliJ plugin does not fail.
Without it, builds fail on Windows as it uses semi-colon instead.
* use transitive_proto_path_flags if exist * Update scala_proto.bzl
So there's good news and bad news. 👍 The good news is that everyone that needs to sign a CLA (the pull request submitter and all commit authors) have done so. Everything is all good there. 😕 The bad news is that it appears that one or more commits were authored by someone other than the pull request submitter. We need to confirm that all authors are ok with their commits being contributed to this project. Please have them confirm that here in the pull request. Note to project maintainer: This is a terminal state, meaning the |
note re cla- I verified it's all approved authors since it's just master with manually taken changes by @hmemcpy |
👍 |
I want to keep the history close to master and not squash the commits but this means force pushing into 2.12. |
I’m confused about this diff since it seems to have diffs that are already in 2.12. For instance I don’t know why the hash change on the jars since that was already updated. Anyway, I view 2.12 branch as an alpha type branch. That said, if you force push, I worry if that could break users using Shas now on the branch. I don’t actually know what happens to the shas. I guess they will still be accessible. |
I'm indeed not sure why they are showing up in the diff.
WDYT? |
As long as we don’t break anyone, I’m good.
I would say I would prefer the 1. You mention where we merge in diffs from
master. That said I hope we can get to making the versions selectable in
master soon.
Sadly I have been very busy with a project and having a hard time finding
time for anything not in the critical path of that.
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 20:37 Ittai Zeidman ***@***.***> wrote:
I'm indeed not sure why they are showing up in the diff.
I'm also not sure what will happen to the sha but from a small
experimentation I did on a different repo it seems they are still
accessible (although I thought they wouldn't be).
I think we can maintain this in two ways:
1. Merge master into this branch constantly- the pro is that this is
the git way to do this but the con is that it creates unclear history (to
me) and we already saw regressions sneak in.
2. Cherry-pick the 2.12 commit on top of master each time and force
push here- less clean and unclear on why we're seeing that diff.
3. Cherry-pick the 2.12 commit on top of master each time and push to
a new branch each time master_$date_2.12- not the git way but solves
the above issues.
WDYT?
Internally we use option 3 for rules_scala HEAD because we also
cherry-pick a few other things we have yet been able to iron out
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#428 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAEJdsGuj2R5Zc1v6GGEX-iqHFKDVfSHks5tW7nCgaJpZM4SMpG4>
.
--
P. Oscar Boykin, Ph.D. | http://twitter.com/posco | http://pobox.com/~boykin
|
Seems like superseded by #435 |
this is just master with cherry-picking 08f3ca5 thanks to @hmemcpy who grouped together the 2.12 relevant changes to ease this branch update