chore(cxapi): reduce merge conflicts in feature flags#18411
Merged
mergify[bot] merged 5 commits intomasterfrom Feb 8, 2022
Merged
chore(cxapi): reduce merge conflicts in feature flags#18411mergify[bot] merged 5 commits intomasterfrom
mergify[bot] merged 5 commits intomasterfrom
Conversation
Try to reduce (future) merge conflicts when feature flags are added. It currently looks like `FUTURE_FLAGS_DEFAULTS` should contain all flags, and they're all set to `false`. On the `v2-main` branch, they're all set to `true`. When adding a new flag, you want to follow suit and add a new line with the flag default set to `false`; then you get a merge conflict when merging to `v2-main` branch because all preceding lines will have changed. The merge conflict alone is annoying, and you'll also be tempted to put in `true` there, which would be incorrect, and be a breaking change of behavior. Instead, this PR gets rid of the entire set of `FUTURE_FLAGS_DEFAULTS` set to `false` -- there's no point to having them anyway, and it gets rid of the associated merge conflicts. Also shore up the docs for these flags a little.
|
|
eladb
approved these changes
Jan 25, 2022
Collaborator
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
Contributor
|
Thank you for contributing! Your pull request will be updated from master and then merged automatically (do not update manually, and be sure to allow changes to be pushed to your fork). |
TikiTDO
pushed a commit
to TikiTDO/aws-cdk
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 21, 2022
Try to reduce (future) merge conflicts when feature flags are added. It currently looks like `FUTURE_FLAGS_DEFAULTS` should contain all flags, and they're all set to `false`. On the `v2-main` branch, they're all set to `true`. When adding a new flag, you want to follow suit and add a new line with the flag default set to `false`; then you get a merge conflict when merging to `v2-main` branch because all preceding lines will have changed. The merge conflict alone is annoying, and you'll also be tempted to put in `true` there, which would be incorrect, and be a breaking change of behavior. Instead, this PR gets rid of the entire set of `FUTURE_FLAGS_DEFAULTS` set to `false` -- there's no point to having them anyway, and it gets rid of the associated merge conflicts. Also shore up the docs for these flags a little. ---- *By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license*
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Try to reduce (future) merge conflicts when feature flags are added.
It currently looks like
FUTURE_FLAGS_DEFAULTSshould contain allflags, and they're all set to
false. On thev2-mainbranch, they'reall set to
true.When adding a new flag, you want to follow suit and add a new line with
the flag default set to
false; then you get a merge conflict whenmerging to
v2-mainbranch because all preceding lines will havechanged. The merge conflict alone is annoying, and you'll also be
tempted to put in
truethere, which would be incorrect, and be abreaking change of behavior.
Instead, this PR gets rid of the entire set of
FUTURE_FLAGS_DEFAULTSset to
false-- there's no point to having them anyway, and itgets rid of the associated merge conflicts.
Also shore up the docs for these flags a little.
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license