Automate rolling of SNAPSHOT version in pom #1438
Conversation
Follow-up to discussion in: datafaker-net#1412
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
| GITHUB_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} | ||
| run: | | ||
| git checkout -b $BRANCH | ||
| ./mvnw build-helper:parse-version versions:set -DnewVersion=\${parsedVersion.majorVersion}.\${parsedVersion.minorVersion}.\${parsedVersion.nextIncrementalVersion}-SNAPSHOT |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Assuming x.y.z it'll always be z that's incremented.
We can always edit the PR or change it manually at any time.
If we want minor (y) incremented on most releases I can likely revise it for that as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Any chance we can make this an input? I think we don't often make a Z change (I hope not, since they are bugfixes), but sometimes it's an Y, sometimes Z, so it would be nicer if I can just type in : next version is 2.5.0 (or 2.4.2), bit more explicit.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you want to kick it off manually then yes you could have an input.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh right, this is created as part of the releases? In that case, can't we use the release version here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I could probably rewrite this to do that but it wouldn't really make the situation any better. Having the existing version doesn't give any hint what element to increment.
I think the best plan is to just switch to incrementing the minor version (y) which as you described above should be correct in the majority of circumstances.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, we're talking about the next/snapshot version, my bad. In that case, I think it doesn't matter if we increment y or z right? (I mean, if 2.5.2-SNAPSHOT results in a 2.6.0 release, I don't think anyone would mind a huge deal)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed, and we can always adjust it manually at any time between releases if necessary/wanted.
|
@bodiam good to go for now? |
Follow-up to discussion in: #1412