This repository was archived by the owner on Sep 9, 2020. It is now read-only.
Opt for more safety on whether to regenerate vendor #1310
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
We were guessing that, if the Gopkg.lock hadn't changed, that vendor also didn't need to change. However, that missed cases where manual modifications had been made to vendor. It's not terribly common, but it still violates the sync model to get this wrong.
|
...i'm actually kinda on the fence about this. is it just enough to ask people to run 🤔 |
|
yeah, i think we can safely get away with not doing this for now. |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What does this do / why do we need it?
We were guessing that, if the Gopkg.lock hadn't changed, that vendor
also didn't need to change. However, that missed cases where manual
modifications had been made to vendor. It's not terribly common, but it
still violates the sync model to get this wrong.
/cc @ibrasho this is ensure, so i'll leave this for you to decide on and merge
What should your reviewer look out for in this PR?
Do you need help or clarification on anything?
Which issue(s) does this PR fix?
fixes #1276