Fix bump version - Githubissues

iScsc / iscsc.fr

The iScsc website, build with passion by wannabe devs 🔥

GNU General Public License v3.0

4 stars 12 forks source link

Fix bump version #26

Closed ctmbl closed 1 year ago

ctmbl commented 1 year ago

This PR aims more to be a look into what we maybe miss during the first version bump than a real addition to the project, it personally raised for me many question on how to rightly version a software and in the iscsc.fr case a website.

amtoine commented 1 year ago

This PR aims more to be a look into what we maybe miss during the first version bump than a real addition to the project, it personally raised for me many question on how to rightly version a software and in the iscsc.fr case a website.

i'm not sure what this is about then :thinking:

maybe you want to make this a DRAFT?

ctmbl commented 1 year ago

You're right it should be a DRAFT :wink: but you still can review the changes I made

atxr commented 1 year ago

Is it ready for review?

amtoine commented 1 year ago

Is it ready for review?

you marked it as such yourself right? :confused: @ctmbl ?

ctmbl commented 1 year ago

@atxr yes it is :wink:

ctmbl commented 1 year ago

In particular I would really like any opinion on the unused fields of the package.json as well as name and description.

atxr commented 1 year ago

I didn't get the point of this PR sorry can you explain it again?

amtoine commented 1 year ago

In particular I would really like any opinion on the unused fields of the package.json

maybe we just don't need them :thinking:

otherwise, you could set default values for each one of them and then we would be able to discuss these values

as well as name and description.

they look nice and simple to me, no real need to be super verbose in there

and as said in the paragraph about files, the README is always included in the package, no need to detail too much the descriptions

ctmbl commented 1 year ago

@atxr

I didn't get the point of this PR sorry can you explain it again?

you're right I've not been clear enough here, in fact this PR has 2 points:

first, arise the question about the package-lock.jsons (we talked about together in private) which hadn't been updated of the 1st version bump (you can check it with git checkout v0.1.0 && cd backend && npm install && git diff), especially the ./package-lock.json that can look useless because we don't run npm install at root but what if we need to in the future? so here the questions: Should we run npm install when bumping version to update package-lock.jsons? Should we run it at root? or include it to the .gitignore?
second, simply make the different package.json more consistent by adding/updating name and description

Sure these 2 things aren't of great importance :sweat_smile: but I'm a perfectionist I like things properly done :sweat_smile:

ctmbl commented 1 year ago

@amtoine

maybe we just don't need them thinking

Absolutely fine to me but I had to ask!

atxr commented 1 year ago

Ok it's clearer!

For the first point, I think we should include the package-lock.json and switch every npm install to npm ci However the package-lock.json in the root directory is useless because it will be empty (no packages are installed in root)
for the second point, adding the name and description parameter looks good!

ctmbl commented 1 year ago

@atxr ok so should I remove the root package-lock.json?

atxr commented 1 year ago

@atxr ok so should I remove the root package-lock.json?

Yes I think so!

amtoine commented 1 year ago

feel free to ping me with a new review when needed :+1:

ctmbl commented 1 year ago

@atxr @amtoine package-lock.json has been removed I think we're able to merge this