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

Update Makefile #269

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Update Makefile #269

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

NameHaibinZhang
Copy link
Collaborator

update makefile version

update makefile version
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 80.02%. Comparing base (753a609) to head (3b76491).

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #269   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   80.02%   80.02%           
=======================================
  Files          23       23           
  Lines         976      976           
=======================================
  Hits          781      781           
  Misses        156      156           
  Partials       39       39           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
#-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# General build options
# Change this parameter while releasing
MAIN_VERSION := 0.4.0
MAIN_VERSION := 0.6.0
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
MAIN_VERSION := 0.6.0
MAIN_VERSION := $(shell git describe --tags `git rev-list --tags --max-count=1` | sed 's/^v//')

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is is correct when we release a new version? For example if we are going to release v0.7.0, there is no v0.7.0 tag.

Copy link
Member

@y1yang0 y1yang0 Dec 26, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

But we always 1) push new tag 2) make all 3) draft new release, is there any unexpected workflow?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

But we always 1) push new tag 2) draft new release, is there any unexpected workflow?

I usually do that at the same time
image

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I usually do that at the same time

You mean 1) create new tag on github 2) build from un-taged latest commit on local 3) upload artifacts?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I usually do that at the same time

You mean 1) create new tag on github 2) build from un-taged latest commit on local 3) upload artifacts?

  1. build from un-taged latest commit on local and upload artifacts 2. create new tag on github and release at the same time

@chaneytech
Copy link
Contributor

For the packager, it should be clear which version to package.
When running make, maybe a parameter can be added to specify the packaging version? If the parameter is not provided, the default value should be taken from the latest Git tag, and the user should be prompted with the version being packaged to avoid unintentional packaging with an incorrect version.

@y1yang0
Copy link
Member

y1yang0 commented Dec 27, 2024

For the packager, it should be clear which version to package. When running make, maybe a parameter can be added to specify the packaging version? If the parameter is not provided, the default value should be taken from the latest Git tag, and the user should be prompted with the version being packaged to avoid unintentional packaging with an incorrect version.

+1

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants