Skip to content
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

Teach rustpkg about branches and tags, not just repositories #6411

Closed
catamorphism opened this issue May 10, 2013 · 7 comments
Closed

Teach rustpkg about branches and tags, not just repositories #6411

catamorphism opened this issue May 10, 2013 · 7 comments

Comments

@catamorphism
Copy link
Contributor

Sub-bug of #5677

For remote packages, rustpkg could infer versions from branches and tags; however, right now it only knows about the URL for a particular git repository.

@ghost ghost assigned catamorphism May 10, 2013
@emberian
Copy link
Member

Triage bump

@catamorphism
Copy link
Contributor Author

I talked with @graydon about this, and we won't support branches. #8032 implements the remaining support for tags. Once #8032 lands, this issue can be closed.

@emberian
Copy link
Member

@catamorphism is it because branches are moving targets, which a package should never target?

@graydon
Copy link
Contributor

graydon commented Jul 25, 2013

It's more that I suspect rustpkg should treat tags and branches as opaque version strings (likewise exact revision numbers and hashes) that it passes through without trying to reason about unless they parse as semvers. It's drifting into "growing a meta vcs" to try to look inside them. So I think you can probably -specify- a branch, but it'll be a very unwise move since as you say, it's a moving target at checkout time.

@emberian
Copy link
Member

The PR as it is now will only handle tags, not any ref, so you can't
actually specify branches (not that I think this is a bad thing, due to
moving target)

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Graydon Hoare [email protected]:

It's more that I suspect rustpkg should treat tags and branches as opaque
version strings (likewise exact revision numbers and hashes) that it passes
through without trying to reason about unless they parse as semvers. It's
drifting into "growing a meta vcs" to try to look inside them. So I think
you can probably -specify- a branch, but it'll be a very unwise move since
as you say, it's a moving target at checkout time.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/6411#issuecomment-21530786
.

@graydon
Copy link
Contributor

graydon commented Jul 25, 2013

Oh. Yeah, it should probably not force the tag interpretation as that won't work for other opaque refspecs (eg. revids)

@catamorphism
Copy link
Contributor Author

#8032 landed, so this is done.

@catamorphism catamorphism removed their assignment Jun 16, 2014
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants