Conversation
action.yml
Outdated
| @@ -1,10 +1,10 @@ | |||
| name: 'Checkout' | |||
| description: 'Checkout a Git repository.' | |||
| description: 'Clone and checkout a Git repository at a particular version' | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
By default, we checkout what we think is the right reference for the user's build (a merge commit on pr's, the head of a the branch on pushes, ect). I think this is misleading and we should just say
Clone and checkout a git repository
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ethomson i pushed changes to master for checkout v2 (beta right now). It doesnt do a full fetch anymore, now it just fetches the single commit (improved perf for mainline scenario)
Curious if you think your proposed description still fits? I'll defer to your judgement
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that just saying "checkout a git repository" - without any additional information
- suggests to the reader that it will be at the remote HEAD. Indicating that it will be "at a particular version" hints that a) it might not be the repository's default and b) it might be able to be overridden.
Not tied to this verbiage.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks makes sense. It was the "Clone" part of your proposed changes that I was worried about. The phrase "at a particular version" is good. Let me know if you want to update the PR otherwise i can make the changes. There is an npm run gendocs command that will regen the input descriptions in the README.md from the action.yml
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Cool. I pushed an update with some minor tweaks. TBQH the descriptions are already good so this is super minor.
action.yml
Outdated
| description: 'Repository name' | ||
| ref: | ||
| description: 'Ref to checkout (SHA, branch, tag)' | ||
| description: 'Reference or ID to checkout (SHA, branch, tag)' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The branch, SHA or tag to checkout might be a little less verbose.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
either way seems good. Reference and ID aligns with git terminology, and the name of the input
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If users can specify just a branch name here (eg, master) then I think that saying "Branch" up-front is ok. But if it needs to be in proper reference format (eg, refs/heads/master) then I think that we should say "Reference or ID" up front.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
master and refs/heads/master are both supported
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice. In that case I agree with @thboop. Will push an update.
ethomson
force-pushed
the
ethomson/update_description
branch
from
55b8b1a to
6c7fa08
Compare
3 participants
No description provided.