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

release v1.15.0 #556

Merged
merged 26 commits into from
Sep 13, 2016
Merged

release v1.15.0 #556

merged 26 commits into from
Sep 13, 2016

Conversation

benmosher
Copy link
Member

@benmosher benmosher commented Sep 12, 2016

Should've really just done this last week 😳

  • once-over from @jfmengels
  • tag
  • publish
  • merge package.json back to master

jfmengels and others added 25 commits August 23, 2016 05:32
* Add `allow` option to `no-nodejs-modules` rule (fixes #452)

* Add test case

* Fix not working in Node v4
Took a while to hunt down why my config wasn't working and figured out that I needed to add this dependency only after reading through [#238](#238) and noticing [this line in a linked example](https://gist.github.com/ravasthi/abcfee465411fc45a8bc28decb9d8e5e#file-package-json-L24). I think adding this line may add some clarity and save time for several other webpack / eslint noobs (like me).
* Add `no-absolute-path` rule (fixes #530)

* fix typo
@benmosher benmosher added this to the 1.15.0 milestone Sep 12, 2016
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Sep 12, 2016

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.07%) to 97.794% when pulling eb1a060 on v1.15.0 into 7995581 on release.

[`no-absolute-path`]: ./docs/rules/no-absolute-path.md
=======
[`max-dependencies`]: ./docs/rules/max-dependencies.md
>>>>>>> tizmagik/feature/max-dependencies
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ahah! My publish reviews are finally useful: There's are traces of merge conflicts 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 need a pre-commit hook for this. if even just for the changelog.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, there should be pre-commit hooks that warn when there are strings like <<<<<<< anywhere in your project. Maybe an idea for https://github.com/SamVerschueren/clinton @SamVerschueren?

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Very good suggestion @jfmengels! Will add it.

@jfmengels
Copy link
Collaborator

LGTM :)

I'm fine with releasing as is, but we're so close to merging #485 that it would be a shame not to include it right away. We could merge it and fix that last comment ourselves. What do you think?

@benmosher
Copy link
Member Author

I'm cool with that, wasn't sure how fast it'd move today and I wanted to get the rest out the door.

If you can merge it into master and rebase this branch back onto the new master, I'm up for it? or I can knock it out in the morning tomorrow probably

@benmosher
Copy link
Member Author

benmosher commented Sep 12, 2016

Plus #555 needs review + will probably merge soon, so v1.16 is probably days away anyway. so I'm cool either way

@jfmengels
Copy link
Collaborator

I'd like to concentrate on writing a blog post (my first one :o) tonight, so I'll leave that to you if you don't mind (plus, I'm not sure I got the whole master/new master branch thing 😅).
And ok, if #555 gets merged in a few days, I'm fine with postponing #485 too.

@benmosher
Copy link
Member Author

sweet deal, no worries. I'll probably punt on #485 until v1.16, and then release that with #555. will need to wait until tomorrow either way.

some part of me still wants releases to be substantial, even though I'm on the CI/CD train. old habits, I guess. 😄

blog post sounds way more important/exciting, get after it! 😎

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Sep 12, 2016

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.07%) to 97.794% when pulling d03577c on v1.15.0 into 7995581 on release.

@benmosher benmosher merged commit d03577c into release Sep 13, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants