Release 2.5.2 - #7016
Conversation
| * Stop the installation process via .install file from creating unnecessary | ||
| intermediate directories for paths that contain `..` [#7015 @kit-ty-kate] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| * Stop the installation process via .install file from creating unnecessary | |
| intermediate directories for paths that contain `..` [#7015 @kit-ty-kate] | |
| * When installing files from `.install` resolve them before creating paths. | |
| It no longer create unnecessary intermediate directories if it contains | |
| indirections (`..`) [#7015 @kit-ty-kate] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure it's clearer
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe a rewording is needed to make it clearer. The idea was to highlight that the paths are now resolved, which avoid creating unnecessary dirs. It is not obvious with just "no more create unnecessary dirs"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
From the users' point of view i don't think it makes sense to mention that paths are resolved. They don't really care. The only effect they could see is the unnecessary directories not being created anymore
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we go that way, from user perspective, there is no impact on the usage, its all under opam root, expect for misc.
I've thought about it because if I read an external changelog that contains that line, it would have implied a lot of questions (why it was created in the first place, what changed, is it a bug, etc.), which can be answered directly/not raised by having the "path resolved" information.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we go that way, from user perspective, there is no impact on the usage, its all under opam root, expect for misc.
I'm also happy to remove it from the changelog entirely.
I've thought about it because if I read an external changelog that contains that line, it would have implied a lot of questions (why it was created in the first place, what changed, is it a bug, etc.), which can be answered directly/not raised by having the "path resolved" information.
But if someone were to have question of that type, then they'd already be interested in the opam codebase enough to simply have a look at the PR directly. Then the question would answer itself.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But if someone were to have question of that type, then they'd already be interested in the opam codebase enough to simply have a look at the PR directly. Then the question would answer itself.
Not necessarily, when i read release notes, i'm just interested on the changes, not the codebase itself. Plus, there is a cost to go and dig on an unknown codebase to have these questions answered, that i won't do on most cases.
I'm also happy to remove it from the changelog entirely.
My opinion : we should keep the line (otherwise half of opam changelog would be removed) and i think it is better to have the "path resolved" information. Now, it is ok for me to keep it as is, the PR is already approved.
2 participants
Modulo #7009 and subsequent empting of master_changes.md