Skip to content

Clearify PreRelease-Handling, separation of PreReleaseLabel and PreReleaseNumber #2353

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

Closed
pniederlag opened this issue Jul 10, 2020 · 2 comments

Comments

@pniederlag
Copy link
Contributor

We have been using gitversion for a while now and I understand it's really powerfull and flexibel. On the opposite side there is a hugh complexity involved in getting it to work in a way that one might like.

The thing that troubles me most is that it seems hard(impossible?) to use a PreReleaseLabel without a PreReleaseNumber. The PreReleaseLabel can be configured in a really powerful way by the branches.xyz.tag configuration. But it will always come with an additional postfix of a PreReleaseNumber, that seems to be out of control.

In my use-case I would really love to use just the fixed string 'SNAPSHOT' as a prelease-label (combined with {BranchName}), but i do not want this prerelease to get a PreReleaseNumber Postfix.

Another imho valid use case is just about the opposite, use a PreReleaseNumber, but dont't add a PreReleaseLabel, check this issue for the details: #2347

So, do we have any chance to use PreReleaseLabel and PreReleaseNumber indepently of each other? In effect we'd like to have more control over the resulting PreReleaseTag.

The rationale/logic behind the current behaviour is explained briefly here:
#1646

actual result

GitVersion_PreReleaseTag=SNAPSHOT.1
GitVersion_PreReleaseTagWithDash=-SNAPSHOT.1
GitVersion_PreReleaseLabel=SNAPSHOT
GitVersion_PreReleaseNumber=1

desired result

GitVersion_PreReleaseTag=SNAPSHOT
GitVersion_PreReleaseTagWithDash=-SNAPSHOT
GitVersion_PreReleaseLabel=SNAPSHOT
GitVersion_PreReleaseNumber=
@asbjornu
Copy link
Member

By the looks of it, this sounds related to what's being discussed in #2065. Could you please read through that discussion and comment on whether it could be adjusted to also support your use-case? The discussion in #2199 may also prove relevant, although from a different perspective.

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Oct 9, 2020

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. After 30 days from now, it will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the stale label Oct 9, 2020
@stale stale bot closed this as completed Nov 8, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants