Setup JSCS configuration#441
Conversation
|
Ready for review. |
|
a lot of files changes, i couldn't see any changes in functionality just code styles - which is good since it's the intention here, tests passed so this one looks good, unless you want us to look at something particular? |
|
will be great to see "updated demo" ) |
|
looks beautiful now, nice! |
|
Thanks all, merged. Let's push things forward again! 🎈 |
|
@Voles isn't it time to update the package version??? |
|
@enkodellc is it common to bump the version for every change? Curious to hear you opinion about this one. Your changes to the clone functionality have been merged before and are published with the v2.3.0 release. See dd277cb?diff=unified |
|
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3826580/what-rules-does-software-version-numbering-follow In my opinion it is not common to bump for every change but definitely for feature changes, breaking changes, and some bug fixes. We know that version 2.1.5 was broken so if any fixes were made I would suggest a patch version bump. In our case since we fixed bugs and added features the 2.3 minor version is appropriate. For your JSCS update it should have at least moved to 2.1.6 patch. Strange I don't see version 2.3 in the branches? I see 2.3 in releases. Maybe I am missing something. I would suggest merging 2.3 into master as it fixed several issues and added features that are commonly requested. In addition as @kotmatpockuh suggested we should have an updated demo as well. |
|
I don't see why we would backport the JSCS improvements. These don't add anything to previous releases, except for code style. Correct me if I'm wrong. We do not have any branches related to the versions. Everything is on I'm very much open for suggestions about the development flow! You're right that the demo's should be updated, but that's out of scope for this PR. |
Add JSCS validation to enforce a predefined code style.