-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9.9k
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
update prerelease check to allow standard release #19001
Conversation
I think this can be dependent on the release ethos of the individual product. There are definitely cask, such as I'm not certain on the best way forward, if we can use a different keyword, or if we need a different allowlist. But I don't think adjusting the current methodology is the right way forward, we probably need to maintain the status quo and have a modified version of handling the alternative. |
Version allow string |
I have added a commit just for discussion and it will be squashed later or drop the PR. Any suggestions and opinions are welcome! |
If I remember correctly the "all" relates to pinning the skip to a specific version number, not a pre-release type. |
See also #18488 |
af6540b
to
d50e872
Compare
Let us consider the This is the reason why I have submitted this changes and want to introduce |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Makes sense to me, thanks @daeho-ro! Also 👍🏻 to not modifying existing all
behaviour.
When a formula or cask is written on the
github_prerelease_allowlist.json
, prerelease is allowed but interestingly it prohibits regular release. I think this should be also allowed too.Here is an example.
utm@beta
cask has a version4.6.1
bututm
is now4.6.3
. On my thought,beta
branch should always have more up to date version than the normal branch and so it should be4.6.3
not4.6.1
.brew style
with your changes locally?brew typecheck
with your changes locally?brew tests
with your changes locally?