Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: add support for package-lock.json #190

Merged

Conversation

noreiller
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Jun 6, 2017

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.01%) to 99.515% when pulling fd7b813 on noreiller:feat/package-lock into 4b6d6db on conventional-changelog:master.

@stevemao
Copy link
Member

stevemao commented Jun 6, 2017

We have a bunch of write...Json()s. Should probably abstract them into a function sometime.

@noreiller
Copy link
Contributor Author

noreiller commented Jun 6, 2017

I wanted to do so, but I had a doubt about this.

Edit: If this is needed, I suggest a function named writeJsonConfig = (fileName, version, option) => {}

@stevemao stevemao merged commit bc0fc53 into conventional-changelog:master Jun 6, 2017
@stevemao
Copy link
Member

stevemao commented Jun 6, 2017

@noreiller oops I merged this. Feel free to refactor the code and send a PR :)

@noreiller noreiller deleted the feat/package-lock branch June 7, 2017 07:07
@Tmarty
Copy link

Tmarty commented Jun 7, 2017

I'd love to test this change. Will it soon be available in standard-version@next or should I build and use standard-version from source?

@bcoe
Copy link
Member

bcoe commented Jun 12, 2017

@Tmarty @noreiller please give 4.2.0 a try \o/ adds a lot of cool features and would love people to take it for a spin.

@Tmarty
Copy link

Tmarty commented Jun 13, 2017

@bcoe @noreiller this works like a charm in 4.2.0 🎉

@noreiller
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi, the last version works great, thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants