upgrade to sbt-native-packager 1.0.6 and sbt 0.13.9 #156
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
let's not merge this until we see green builds at https://scala-ci.typesafe.com/job/scala-2.11.x-release-main/ again (after merging #155) |
we recently upgraded to 1.0.4, but that caused a regression so the change never received full testing yet. the regression has bene fixed, so as long as we're going to do a new round of testing, let's test the latest latest
SethTisue
force-pushed
the
sbt-native-packager-1.0.6
branch
from
8aabf95 to
71aba62
Compare
just on general dogfooding principle. delicious gravy!
SethTisue
changed the title
|
the coast seems clear |
SethTisue
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 15, 2016
upgrade to sbt-native-packager 1.0.6 and sbt 0.13.9
SethTisue
added a commit
to SethTisue/scala-dist
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 3, 2016
the upgrade turned out to be way too problematic. even after multiple PRs addressing regressions, new ones continue to turn up; see scala/scala-dev#92 for details on the latest regressions. for past history (including details on regressions), see these PRs in this repo: scala#159, scala#157, scala#156, scala#155, scala#154, scala#142, plus issue so what's next after this? - we could maybe still consider upgrading for 2.11.9, but someone would need to thoroughly QA it on all platforms and assure us there are no regressions - or we could restrict the upgrade to 2.12.x and hope for partially crowdsourced QA so that regressions would be caught during the milestone and release candidate phases. I lean towards leaving 2.11.x frozen at 0.6.4, at least unless the upgrade brings concrete benefits to end users (no one has listed any, to my knowledge). if this is mainly just dogfooding, then 2.12.x is a better context for that.
SethTisue
added a commit
to SethTisue/scala-dist
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 3, 2016
this restores the 2.11.7 status quo for the 2.11.8 release. the upgrade turned out to be way too problematic. even after multiple PRs addressing regressions, new ones continue to turn up; see scala/scala-dev#92 for details on the latest regressions. for past history (including details on regressions), see these PRs in this repo: scala#159, scala#157, scala#156, scala#155, scala#154, scala#142, plus issue so what's next after this? - we could maybe still consider upgrading for 2.11.9, but someone would need to thoroughly QA it on all platforms and assure us there are no regressions - or we could restrict the upgrade to 2.12.x and hope for partially crowdsourced QA so that regressions would be caught during the milestone and release candidate phases. I lean towards leaving 2.11.x frozen at 0.6.4, at least unless the upgrade brings concrete benefits to end users (no one has listed any, to my knowledge). if this is mainly just dogfooding, then 2.12.x is a better context for that.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
we recently upgraded to 1.0.4, but that caused a regression
so the change hasn't really been fully tested yet. I committed
a fix for the regression (#155), so as long as we're going to do
a new round of testing, let's test the latest latest