feat(options): add the ability to skip bump/changelog phase by using …

[denouche]

…--skip-bump-and-changelog option, and to skip the commit/tag/push phase by using --skip-commit option

closes #157

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-2.2%) to 97.794% when pulling fc95812 on denouche:feat/157-skip-phases into d0d71a5 on conventional-changelog:master.

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-2.2%) to 97.794% when pulling fc95812 on denouche:feat/157-skip-phases into d0d71a5 on conventional-changelog:master.

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-2.2%) to 97.794% when pulling fc95812 on denouche:feat/157-skip-phases into d0d71a5 on conventional-changelog:master.

[coveralls]

Coverage remained the same at 100.0% when pulling ddcc13a on denouche:feat/157-skip-phases into d0d71a5 on conventional-changelog:master.

[coveralls]

Coverage remained the same at 100.0% when pulling ddcc13a on denouche:feat/157-skip-phases into d0d71a5 on conventional-changelog:master.

[Tapppi]

Lets wait for the discussion in #157 first, and then decide the fate of this!

[stevemao]

I like the option, skip-commit, but not the other one :)

[Tapppi]

@stevemao I agree, even if this is not necessary for htis use case once we get started on hooks, it might be worthwile anyway.

[bcoe]

@Tapppi @stevemao @lancecaraccioli I like the idea of enumerating a set of lifecycles that occur in standard-verison:

pre-commit
pre-changelog
pre-tag

...

then it would be neat to allow any of these steps to be skipped within reason -- it would also be nice to try to isolate the logic for each so that, within reason, we can perform a rollback.

[lancecaraccioli]

@bcoe I was thinking an incremental approach would make sense here. Let's put the infrastructure in place to call hooks first. Then let the community add hooks (via PR) based on their concrete use cases. I'll try to update my PR for #167 today based on discussion there.

Is there a need for to explicitly skip hooks other than just not including it in the package stanza I mean? I may be missing a linking thought on that one.

[bcoe]

@lancecaraccioli @denouche it's looking like the initial hooks work is close to landing; once this is polished with documentation, etc; I think we should then use this as the foundation for adding the support for skipping specific lifecycle hooks.

[bcoe]

closing in favor of: #188