Write sbt.version to project/build.properties #3025
Conversation
Have sbt.version set in project/build.properties is a best practice because it makes the build more deterministic and reproducible. With this change sbt, after ensuring that the base directory is probably an sbt project, writes out sbt.version in project/build.properties if it is missing. Fixes sbt#754
| private def isSbtProject(baseDir: File, projectDir: File) = | ||
| projectDir.exists() || (baseDir * "*.sbt").get.nonEmpty | ||
|
|
||
| private def setSbtVersion(baseDir: File, sbtVersion: String) = { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We might want to put opt-out Java flag around this method.
main/src/main/scala/sbt/Main.scala
Outdated
| try { | ||
| if (isSbtProject(baseDir, projectDir)) { | ||
| val newBuildPropsLines = s"sbt.version=$sbtVersion" :: buildPropsLines | ||
| IO.writeLines(buildProps, newBuildPropsLines) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think sbt should tell the user that it's writing the file. Software should not perform side effects silently without explicit user consent.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Between not booting up at all and creating build.properties, creating build.properties I think is lesser of two bad scenarios.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree. My point is that sbt should also say "don't worry, I'll write it out for you".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ok. I don't have a strong opinion on displaying warning or silently creating the file. We can go either way.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh good, because I agree with Martin.
Have sbt.version set in project/build.properties is a best practice
because it makes the build more deterministic and reproducible.
With this change sbt, after ensuring that the base directory is probably
an sbt project, writes out sbt.version in project/build.properties if it
is missing.
Fixes #754