Closed JounQin closed 2 years ago
This pull request is automatically built and testable in CodeSandbox.
To see build info of the built libraries, click here or the icon next to each commit SHA.
Merging #438 (6b41988) into master (58101c1) will not change coverage. The diff coverage is
100.00%
.:exclamation: Current head 6b41988 differs from pull request most recent head 2a7fb4d. Consider uploading reports for the commit 2a7fb4d to get more accurate results
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #438 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 3 4 +1
Lines 161 163 +2
Branches 27 27
=========================================
+ Hits 161 163 +2
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
src/format-files.js | 100.00% <ø> (ø) |
|
src/prettier-eslint.js | 100.00% <100.00%> (ø) |
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.
@JounQin FYI, the release didn't work. semantic-release
determined it didn't need to version bump. https://github.com/prettier/prettier-eslint-cli/runs/7808657314?check_suite_focus=true
[3:01:49 PM] [semantic-release] › ℹ Start step "analyzeCommits" of plugin "@semantic-release/commit-analyzer"
[3:01:49 PM] [semantic-release] [@semantic-release/commit-analyzer] › ℹ Analyzing commit: feat!: bump all upgradable (dev)Dependencies except pure ESM (#437)
[3:01:49 PM] [semantic-release] [@semantic-release/commit-analyzer] › ℹ The commit should not trigger a release
@JounQin FYI, the release didn't work.
semantic-release
determined it didn't need to version bump. https://github.com/prettier/prettier-eslint-cli/runs/7808657314?check_suite_focus=true[3:01:49 PM] [semantic-release] › ℹ Start step "analyzeCommits" of plugin "@semantic-release/commit-analyzer" [3:01:49 PM] [semantic-release] [@semantic-release/commit-analyzer] › ℹ Analyzing commit: feat!: bump all upgradable (dev)Dependencies except pure ESM (#437) [3:01:49 PM] [semantic-release] [@semantic-release/commit-analyzer] › ℹ The commit should not trigger a release
That's why I don't like it, I'd prefer changesets
for releasing.
Any idea how can I fix? Or can we migrate to changesets?
cc @kylemh
changesets
wouldn't have magically resolved our issue either. In this situation, there's TECHNICALLY no breaking change for consumers because there's no interface change. That being said, I don't mind choosing a major release because we've changed how prettier-eslint
resolves.
Instead of migrating to changesets
we should figure out how to force a publish with a manually defined version for this one instance.
changesets
wouldn't have magically resolved our issue either. In this situation, there's TECHNICALLY no breaking change for consumers because there's no interface change. That being said, I don't mind choosing a major release because we've changed howprettier-eslint
resolves.Instead of migrating to
changesets
we should figure out how to force a publish with a manually defined version for this one instance.
changesets
is based on changeset file, not relying on the commit message only. So there will be no issue if we migrate to changesets
, because we can always add changeset file later before releasing.
Take https://github.com/prettier/eslint-plugin-prettier/commit/7bd70b65b680d360cd55aa9998804fc1e7188331#diff-8a555112659f40251b1022a16f7f984287f501c43766c71c0bfd2c2f3ef6ffa1R2 as an example.
Oh damn. I WAS going to say: I'm not at all worried to switch to changesets
. I love the tool! I'm simply saying this isn't really a good reason to switch away from semantic-release
; however, I just googled and saw this:
You can trigger a release by pushing to your Git repository. You deliberately cannot trigger a specific version release, because this is the whole point of semantic-release.
That seems silly.
Okay, I don't know. Interested to hear what other say. The tool is technically correct. This isn't a major version change, but - in my opinion - versioning is best served as a communication tool with consumers. Making it a strict reference to changes in interface seems like losing out on an opportunity to be really responsible to our users.
That seems silly.
Stupid, actually. 😁
Okay, I don't know. Interested to hear what other say. The tool is technically correct. This isn't a major version change, but - in my opinion - versioning is best served as a communication tool with consumers. Making it a strict reference to changes in interface seems like losing out on an opportunity to be really responsible to our users.
That's the point why I want to migrate to changesets
! Right? 🤝
But to make it not a blocker, I'd like to mark a BREAKING CHANGE:
commit in another PR.
I like the non-blocking strategy personally, but will defer to others on that.
Alternative to changesets
would be https://github.com/intuit/auto so that we can simply label changes whenever we want.
Either works well enough, imo.
I like the non-blocking strategy personally, but will defer to others on that.
Yep, I'll raise a new PR requesting review later.
Alternative to
changesets
would be intuit/auto so that we can simply label changes whenever we want.Either works well enough, imo.
I've been using changesets
for a long time:
thanks
mentions for contributorsCodeSandbox CI
has been doing this jobI'm not so familiar with https://github.com/intuit/auto.
My only concern with making it a peer dependency is that what if we make a breaking change where the CLI only works with pretter-eslint
at some version.
My only concern with making it a peer dependency is that what if we make a breaking change where the CLI only works with
pretter-eslint
at some version.
We can change the version range of peer.
Oh as for semantic-release
vs changesets
vs that Intuit one. I really don't have a preference. I use semantic-release
for my VS Code extension and ended up doing what @kylemh is talking about by setting things. https://github.com/idahogurl/vs-code-prettier-eslint/blob/396efd13e65eb2cc624f9e354c0434ce504e9ea7/release.config.js#L8-L10
Let's skip changesets in this PR and continue at https://github.com/prettier/prettier-eslint-cli/issues/441
@idahogurl Are we good to merge this PR?
:tada: This PR is included in version 7.0.0 :tada:
The release is available on:
Your semantic-release bot :package::rocket:
What:
close #144, close #436
BREAKING CHANGE: bump all upgradable (dev)Dependencies except pure ESM
(WTF
semantic-release
...)We must be careful on merging...
BREAKING CHANGE:
token must be in the footer of the commit (which is stupid again and again)Why:
close #144
How:
mark
prettier-eslint
as optional peer dependency, and fallback to internal@prettier/eslint
which actually pointing toprettier-eslint