This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 23, 2021. It is now read-only.
Generalized API #3
Closed
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
| @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ | |||
| { | |||
| "name": "gulp-dust", | |||
| "version": "0.2.0", | |||
| "version": "0.3.0", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
don't bump the version in PRs. I use a release script that does it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does the script also tag the repo? I've tagged it also.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes. you generally shouldn't bump it anyways. i might not be ready to release a new version or even choose a different one.
|
Nice work. Available in 0.3.0 ;) |
|
Thanks. Putting it to good use already. |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Here's the pull request that I suggested in #2. I was mistaken about Dust's interface, though. According to Dust issue 238, the flag that I mentioned is some kind of reverse compatibility to retain leading whitespace. I suspect the intended use is something like plain text files: when the normal compression gets applied, new lines would turn into joined words. At any rate, that use doesn't suit my needs, so I've entirely disabled whitespace optimization rather than set that flag:
Rather than adding a second optional parameter to the signature, I've implemented an options blob. Tests pass and the version has been bumped. (There's reverse compatibility if a function is provided instead of an object.)