Fix for semantic prerelease #30
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
I forgot about this PR, we should get this looked at if we want CI to produce releases/pre-releases for us @sestrella |
|
@oscar-izval, as we discussed, we will try to get rid of the prerelease, so I am closing this PR in favor of #38. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Current behaviour of
semantic-releaseprevents the usage of the main branch for prereleases, this is explained here. To circumvent that, we can use another branch as a placeholder so that semantic-release sees a valid release branch not meant to be a prerelease.This is a bit hacky and there are some valid points in the link above, but given that the prerelease workflow was meant to be replaced with direct releases at some point, I wouldn't be against "hacking" our way through this for the time being while the project matures a bit more. Any thoughts on this @sestrella?
Note: we'd need to push a
masterbranch for this to work.