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

docker-completion: build from github source tarball #171907

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 17, 2024
Merged

Conversation

chenrui333
Copy link
Member

@chenrui333 chenrui333 commented May 16, 2024

  • Have you followed the guidelines for contributing?
  • Have you ensured that your commits follow the commit style guide?
  • Have you checked that there aren't other open pull requests for the same formula update/change?
  • Have you built your formula locally with HOMEBREW_NO_INSTALL_FROM_API=1 brew install --build-from-source <formula>, where <formula> is the name of the formula you're submitting?
  • Is your test running fine brew test <formula>, where <formula> is the name of the formula you're submitting?
  • Does your build pass brew audit --strict <formula> (after doing HOMEBREW_NO_INSTALL_FROM_API=1 brew install --build-from-source <formula>)? If this is a new formula, does it pass brew audit --new <formula>?

$ /opt/homebrew/Cellar/docker/26.1.3/bin/docker --version
Docker version 26.1.3, build Homebrew

followup #171906

@chenrui333 chenrui333 added the CI-no-bottles Merge without publishing bottles label May 16, 2024
@chenrui333 chenrui333 force-pushed the docker-update branch 2 times, most recently from f1a3f9a to 410b58c Compare May 16, 2024 18:40
@chenrui333 chenrui333 requested a review from a team May 16, 2024 21:51
@chenrui333 chenrui333 enabled auto-merge May 16, 2024 21:51
@@ -35,7 +34,7 @@ def install
ldflags = %W[
-s -w
-X github.com/docker/cli/cli/version.BuildTime=#{time.iso8601}
-X github.com/docker/cli/cli/version.GitCommit=#{Utils.git_short_head}
-X github.com/docker/cli/cli/version.GitCommit=#{tap.user}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We can probably keep this in case users rely on it. But we can definitely install the completions from a tarball.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

why does people reply on it? what is the use case?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Debugging, perhaps? Presumably if there were no use case upstream wouldn't build this into the output of their version information...

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

for release build, it is not useful (the vcs provider introduced in go1.18 for debugging build), that is why I am also trying to update all the go builds without using git checkout.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I've seen quite some arguments from upstream developers that disagree with that. They generally want to know what commit the versioned build was based on.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We should definitely keep this. I see no reason to ever override GitCommit to not mention a Git commit and, if this has been done on any other formulae, these changes should be reverted.

Suggested change
-X github.com/docker/cli/cli/version.GitCommit=#{tap.user}
-X github.com/docker/cli/cli/version.GitCommit=#{Utils.git_short_head}-Homebrew

or something if you really want to identify Homebrew usage here.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I've seen quite some arguments from upstream developers that disagree with that. They generally want to know what commit the versioned build was based on.

The version is equivalent to the commit, if we are going to do it, should we revert all the go formulae to the git checkout. (maybe another RFC on this topic?)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think it is equivalent.

should we revert all the go formulae to the git checkout.

or query it from the API?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

for now, I just revert the docker build change

@carlocab carlocab disabled auto-merge May 16, 2024 22:19
@chenrui333 chenrui333 changed the title docker, docker-completion: build from github source tarball docker-completion: build from github source tarball May 17, 2024
Signed-off-by: Rui Chen <rui@chenrui.dev>
@chenrui333 chenrui333 added the ready to merge PR can be merged once CI is green label May 17, 2024
@chenrui333 chenrui333 enabled auto-merge May 17, 2024 17:42
@chenrui333 chenrui333 added this pull request to the merge queue May 17, 2024
Merged via the queue into master with commit 9a3466f May 17, 2024
28 checks passed
@chenrui333 chenrui333 deleted the docker-update branch May 17, 2024 18:07
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
CI-no-bottles Merge without publishing bottles ready to merge PR can be merged once CI is green
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants