These are chat archives for reactioncommerce/reaction

24th
Dec 2016
Aaron Judd
@aaronjudd
Dec 24 2016 01:24
@tdmoneybanks our goal is that development is usually to be viewed as a release candidate, and that it should be able to be released whenever something is merged to development. We’ve been trying to get to the point where if all CI tests, reviews are good, we’d merge to development, which then has a slightly different set of tests that ensure a Docker build succeeds (and runs). If that tests pass (which, of course, it should) then development is good to merge to master. This final step of deciding to merge development into master is a manual one right now, and because of that we tend to only push a couple small releases in between major releases, but are working to get that automated. (we have all this documented, need to publish)
the rest of the branches are feature branches, so we just merged release-0.18.0 into development, which means the development package.json,etc is all updated now and is a release candidate. The only hold up was #1667 which is complete in a PR, and then we’ll merge to master, tag it,etc…. part of the manual release process is also making sure all the PR’s and docs are done. We’re trying to be better at getting docs writting during the code.. but, well you know…. so this also delays release sometimes.
Aaron Judd
@aaronjudd
Dec 24 2016 01:30
to be honest, we’ve been struggling a little bit with the GH release process, trying to take advantage of all the new bells and whistles GitHub has given us, and I’m wondering if the squash and merge option from release-0.18.0 into development was a bad idea, and that is causing you conflicts, or that you just have that many conflicts and it’s your code. ( it’s a big release, there is likely to be some that we’ll have resolve merging to master). can you let me know?
Brent Hoover
@zenweasel
Dec 24 2016 01:47
I am hoping we can have it ready to go before the New Year.
Lorenzo Campanis
@lcampanis
Dec 24 2016 02:31
Would that squashing and merging have an impact on #1591 cause been struggling a bit to bring it back to normal without losing history
Dedrin
@Dedrin_twitter
Dec 24 2016 02:37
Hello, I wanted to ask when will there be a price put on this product?
Aaron Judd
@aaronjudd
Dec 24 2016 17:00
@lcampanis if you want I can take a whack at cleanup / merge later. I switched the PR branch to ‘development`.
@Dedrin_twitter it’s open source…. (so always free)
@ababba15 using Reaction.Router.current().queryParams; you can use the router outside of that file (get/set,etc ), you can also add routes, etc after the routing is initialized. check out the flow-router docs for details
Aaron Judd
@aaronjudd
Dec 24 2016 17:09
@lcampanis I commented on #1591 :+1: sorry for the mess
tdmoneybanks
@tdmoneybanks
Dec 24 2016 19:36
@aaronjudd thanks for the large and informative answer! so i fixed most of the merge conflicts myself so i could access the discounts code (great work btw!). Strangely, most of the merge conflicts were due to il8n json files and some stuff with products (server methods and pubs i believe). As far as what i was trying to merge into what, we maintain a fork of reaction so we can better analyze how our code would fit with the new reaction release and if we need to make any changes to our plugins to account for it (we clone this repo's master when we do a prod build so its important to ensure everything is working between the core and our plugins, thus the fork). Please let me know if you see similar issues when trying to merge development into master but i dont believe our fork has any code that isnt on the base reaction master branch
hrath2015
@hrath2015
Dec 24 2016 19:42
@tdmoneybanks which is your prod site. May be we can use it another RC reference. That will make it 4.
tdmoneybanks
@tdmoneybanks
Dec 24 2016 19:43
give us a couple months and we will :) its in stealth and behind a network right now. the prod builds are just to refine and stabilize that process
hrath2015
@hrath2015
Dec 24 2016 19:43
OK
:+1: