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

suggestion: use main branch for Deno standard library module #17434

Closed
iuioiua opened this issue Jan 15, 2023 · 3 comments
Closed

suggestion: use main branch for Deno standard library module #17434

iuioiua opened this issue Jan 15, 2023 · 3 comments

Comments

@iuioiua
Copy link
Contributor

iuioiua commented Jan 15, 2023

Deno's standard library uses the canary release of the Deno runtime in CI. Doing so provides the benefit of catching early regressions that could be made in the Deno library by causing the CI to fail in the standard library.

However, this repo does not do the same back. Instead, this repo uses a version of the standard library a few versions back and has to be updated manually now and again. The pitfall of this method is that regressions can come up in the standard library that affects a "stable" version of the Deno runtime, affecting users.

I suggest that the Deno runtime repo instead uses the main branch of the standard library as its submodule. Doing so would shorten this feedback loop between the Deno runtime and standard library and catch cross-repo regressions before releases are published.

This is safe enough to do as long as PR merges are frozen when both repos versions are published, which I believe is the case. In other words, both repos end up using the release version code of each other even though they point to the other repo's main branch.

References:

CC @kt3k

@kt3k
Copy link
Member

kt3k commented Jan 15, 2023

Does git submodule has ability to track the remote 'branch'?

Doing so would shorten this feedback loop between the Deno runtime and standard library and catch cross-repo regressions before releases are published.

I think that shorter feedback is only necessary for std/node because only std/node is a part of CLI. Maybe we should set DENO_NODE_COMPAT_URL pointing main branch of std?

@bartlomieju
Copy link
Member

I think that shorter feedback is only necessary for std/node because only std/node is a part of CLI. Maybe we should set DENO_NODE_COMPAT_URL pointing main branch of std?

AFAIK we can't do https://deno.land/std@main/ - also that means that this code would never update for users, unless they use --reload flag. I revived #16748 and it should be easier once #17264 lands.

@iuioiua
Copy link
Contributor Author

iuioiua commented Feb 9, 2023

Closing as a result of the work relating to denoland/std#3171.

@iuioiua iuioiua closed this as completed Feb 9, 2023
@denoland denoland deleted a comment from Sakk1998 Feb 9, 2023
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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants