Open lurch opened 7 years ago
I'd enthusiastically vote for this, I've definitely found cases where it'd work delightfully.
no-checks
does cover similar ground, but it's nice to be able to declare this at commit time, to still get warning messages for failed checks, and to be able to keep the consistent label-based merge flow.
Does the usage of no-checks
(to cover this situation) rely on the PR being manually merged, and so wouldn't work for those repos with a protected master
branch?
I believe the way it works is that you can manually merge to protected branches, but only if all the selected status checks pass first. If you don't have a change-type, normally the versionbot check would fail, but if you add no-checks
it'll pass regardless, to allow you to do a normal merge.
I'm getting a little out of my depth here, but presumably if a VersionBot-using repo was set up with protected branches, then versionist
would be one of the required-statuses; and so if you added a PR with the no-checks
label (and I guess you'd need to remember to add the label before creating the PR rather than afterwards), then wouldn't GH complain that one of the required statuses was missing?
It's been added to
versionist
https://github.com/resin-io/versionist/issues/81 but AFAIK it's not yet supported byVersionBot
. See https://github.com/resin-io/versionist/issues/76 for the rationale - basically it'd be a way to mark small 'typo' style PRs, so that they don't result in pointless version-bumps.