Skip to content
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

Implement the rest of the package_ignore_list #862

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 10, 2021

Conversation

cottsay
Copy link
Member

@cottsay cottsay commented Mar 10, 2021

I have no clue what I was thinking, but I missed the 'meat' of the package_ignore_list implementation in #858.

This should complete the feature.

I have no clue what I was thinking, but I missed the 'meat' of the
package_ignore_list implementation.

This should complete the feature.
@cottsay cottsay self-assigned this Mar 10, 2021
Copy link
Contributor

@nuclearsandwich nuclearsandwich left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would it make sense in to extract the exclusion logic somewhere it can be used by both the release_job and status_page_input?

@cottsay
Copy link
Member Author

cottsay commented Mar 10, 2021

Would it make sense in to extract the exclusion logic somewhere it can be used by both the release_job and status_page_input?

Maybe. I know those are the only two spots it's necessary. The status page stuff didn't even know about downstream dependencies until I added support for that a year (or so) ago. There's probably an opportunity to put it all on the release_build_file or something.

I filed #863 - hopefully we'll find some time to make it happen.

@cottsay cottsay merged commit 96e4062 into master Mar 10, 2021
@cottsay cottsay deleted the cottsay/packages_ignore branch March 10, 2021 18:18
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants