Add package_suffix option #804
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
Signed-off-by: bufdev <[email protected]>
bufdev
force-pushed
the
package-suffix-option
branch
from
e0881aa to
1f441de
Compare
emcfarlane
approved these changes
Dec 19, 2024
jhump
approved these changes
Dec 19, 2024
emcfarlane
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 20, 2024
This is the alternative option `package_suffix` re: #803 (review). I'm not sure which one I like more - I don't like the name `same_package` that much, and this gives more flexibility, but I don't know if we want to offer that flexibility. Looking for opinions. Regardless of if we choose this or #803 as-is, we should make sure the README.md documents the option. Signed-off-by: bufdev <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Edward McFarlane <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This is the alternative option
package_suffixre: #803 (review). I'm not sure which one I like more - I don't like the namesame_packagethat much, and this gives more flexibility, but I don't know if we want to offer that flexibility. Looking for opinions.Regardless of if we choose this or #803 as-is, we should make sure the README.md documents the option.