-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
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
clean / dirty / untracked #19
Comments
Hello, |
I like the idea also: practically, dirty should mean sth untracked but not ignored, In fact git provides sth like that, namely the command describe. So the problem goes deeper: the suggestion shall be made to the git team. I think, to keep backward compatibility, it is ok to have both labels or one of them, depending on the state. By the way: THANK YOU A LOT FOR THAT PLUGIN... it is GREAT!!!! |
Ran into this as well. I don't see a problem with diverging from The goal of this plugin is to create version tags which describe the exact state of what is being built, not to be compatible with git. |
It is not just the aim of that plugin to describe the state of the workspace related to repo, |
@Reissner The description of the plugin is:
Where does it say that the aim of the plugin is to expose git properties or use |
Perhaps to chime in here (and thanks to the previous commenters). Perhaps can someone who wants that feature also elaborate further on the use case? In my personal view it feels like that untracked files (not commited, only files that exists locally) can only occur locally. Why does the version number matter here? Whatever is produced should not be made public, since the untracked uncommited file is essentially resulting in a build that is not reproducible by others. So just to understand this right: We could also call the generated property |
@TheSnoozer I think the intent of your second paragraph is unclear. Are you asking that the person(s) who want [1] Actually, it's more than non-reproducible. Builds which use |
@TheSnoozer if you have untracked files then "git.dirty" could be set to true. (and currently it s not) If you do not agree with that then it would be great to add a "git.untracked". I reformulate an example to show how I would use this "new" property:
|
thanks for this plugin. it is awesome.
However I feel a little something is missing:
When the plugin run we have an information about
"git.dirty" which tells us that the build is being performed on a dirty branch.
However if there is a new file that is "untracked" then this boolean is still false and there is not way to really know if the state of the current branch is "clean".
Could you add a "git.untracked" that would be true if some files are untracked in the current branch.
Or you could add a "git.clean" that would be the opposite of dirty
(except that when there is an untracked file then "git.clean" would be false and "git.dirty" would be false)
usage example:
if "git.clean" is false then I would prevent developers from building the project except it project version ends with "SNAPSHOT"
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: