https://pantsbuild.org/ logo
Powered by
#development
  • b

    billowy-beach-68498

    05/04/2017, 7:09 PM
    @rough-minister-58256 can I land https://github.com/pantsbuild/pants/pull/4546?
  • r

    rough-minister-58256

    05/04/2017, 7:10 PM
    go for it - my comment was just a quick driveby
  • b

    billowy-beach-68498

    05/04/2017, 7:10 PM
    ok thanks!
  • f

    fancy-queen-20734

    05/04/2017, 7:13 PM
  • w

    witty-crayon-22786

    05/04/2017, 7:15 PM
    @fancy-queen-20734 : yea, I think kris is going to grab that one. but he has the time constraint of the other issue.
  • f

    fancy-queen-20734

    05/04/2017, 7:16 PM
    makes sense. is it a blocker for 1.3.0?
  • w

    witty-crayon-22786

    05/04/2017, 7:19 PM
    yes, absolutely
  • w

    witty-crayon-22786

    05/04/2017, 7:20 PM
    moreso maybe that what he is currently working on. cc @rough-minister-58256
  • w

    witty-crayon-22786

    05/04/2017, 7:20 PM
    ...well, they both are for a final release. but i think the deprecations could in theory wait for later rcs if need be
  • r

    rough-minister-58256

    05/04/2017, 7:20 PM
    can knock it out, unless you see a clear path
  • f

    fancy-queen-20734

    05/04/2017, 7:21 PM
    I don’t have a lot of context around it
  • f

    fancy-queen-20734

    05/04/2017, 7:21 PM
    so I’d appreciate that
  • f

    fancy-queen-20734

    05/04/2017, 7:21 PM
    But I can pick it up if you need me to
  • w

    witty-crayon-22786

    05/04/2017, 7:22 PM
    really sorry i'm not there today. the timing on this sucks
  • r

    rough-minister-58256

    05/04/2017, 7:24 PM
    no worries
  • f

    fancy-queen-20734

    05/04/2017, 8:39 PM
    I’m a bit unfocused rn, so I came up with a very procedural search and replace patch wrt javadoc in Rust. https://github.com/pantsbuild/pants/pull/4550
  • w

    witty-crayon-22786

    05/04/2017, 8:51 PM
    thanks
  • r

    rough-minister-58256

    05/05/2017, 9:26 AM
    https://github.com/pantsbuild/pants/pull/4542 is probably ready for an initial review - couple more test failures to shake out, but looking good.
  • r

    rough-minister-58256

    05/05/2017, 9:27 AM
    if we think 
    traversable_specs
    is also worthwhile I can give that the same treatment before landing
  • w

    witty-crayon-22786

    05/05/2017, 5:40 PM
    great, thanks
  • r

    rough-minister-58256

    05/06/2017, 1:05 AM
  • r

    rough-minister-58256

    05/06/2017, 1:05 AM
  • r

    rough-minister-58256

    05/06/2017, 1:05 AM
    it’s unclear exactly how to test the deploy bit of this, but I think it’s all correct afaict
  • r

    rough-minister-58256

    05/06/2017, 4:09 AM
    looks like there’s some kind of flakiness in CI currently: https://travis-ci.org/pantsbuild/pants/jobs/229359410#L5713
  • r

    rough-minister-58256

    05/06/2017, 4:10 AM
    saw that in my commit w/ only a travis.yml edit.. for a different test
  • r

    rough-minister-58256

    05/06/2017, 4:12 AM
    and in the tds branch
  • w

    witty-crayon-22786

    05/06/2017, 6:29 PM
    yea.
  • r

    rough-minister-58256

    05/06/2017, 7:53 PM
    switching from string specs to addresses seems like it will require passing a rel_path for relative spec parsing.. worth it?
  • r

    rough-minister-58256

    05/06/2017, 7:54 PM
    if we defer the address.parse until later, we’ll have that context outside of compute_dep_specs
  • w

    witty-crayon-22786

    05/06/2017, 7:56 PM
    @rough-minister-58256 : they should always be absolute
1...327328329...906Latest