You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Right now users copy-paste the bazel-diff-example.sh to stitch together the bazel-diff commands. This means users end up modifying and having diverging copies, not able to upstream their improvements to share with other users.
Ideally some "shrink-wrapped" distribution would include the top-level entry point (maybe still using Bash).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This means users end up modifying and having diverging copies, not able to upstream their improvements to share with other users.
I agree that ideally we could share one shell script to rule them all, the blocker here is that I do not know the exact steps required to build any Bazel project. For example, if we have revision A and revision B there may be a core tooling change that happens in B, that may require the developer to run some kind of setup script before we can run bazel-diff on revision B (think installing some command line tool).
I worry that if we prescribe one approach then users who have some tooling that is not fully specified by Bazel will be left behind
Right now users copy-paste the
bazel-diff-example.sh
to stitch together the bazel-diff commands. This means users end up modifying and having diverging copies, not able to upstream their improvements to share with other users.Ideally some "shrink-wrapped" distribution would include the top-level entry point (maybe still using Bash).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: