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
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Dec 1, 2022. It is now read-only.
Currently the format is HashMap<PathBuf, Vec<Source>>
Hierarchy is clear
More complexity to expand
More complexity to merge multiple stages (a default and a user stage)
Other possible options:
Vec<PathBuf, Source>
Easy to expand
Easy to merge
But what do we call the PathBuf field in the struct (since we can't actually use a tuple)? We we'd probably flatten the Source struct into this, meaning we can't conflict with any Source names
Vec<PathBuf, Vec<Source>>
Worse of both worlds?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Its a noun, so should be `Stage` and not `Staging`.
For `de`, we are using a `Map` format and could support more (see crate-ci#21).
BREAKING CHANGE: Renamed `Staging`.
epage
added a commit
to epage/stager
that referenced
this issue
Aug 12, 2018
Its a noun, so should be `Stage` and not `Staging`.
For `de`, we are using a `Map` format and could support more (see crate-ci#21).
BREAKING CHANGE: Renamed `Staging`.
Currently the format is
HashMap<PathBuf, Vec<Source>>
Other possible options:
Vec<PathBuf, Source>
PathBuf
field in the struct (since we can't actually use a tuple)? We we'd probably flatten theSource
struct into this, meaning we can't conflict with anySource
namesVec<PathBuf, Vec<Source>>
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: