Optional Links #82
Open
Optional Links #82
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
|
I think the workflow error is because I've updated some deps that may require go 1.17 because of build tag changes. |
|
Looks like |
You're right, already noticed that in other projects as well. Will try this out asap, thanks for the contribution! |
Signed-off-by: jolheiser <[email protected]> # Conflicts: # go.mod # go.sum
Signed-off-by: jolheiser <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: jolheiser <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: jolheiser <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: jolheiser <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: jolheiser <[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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Resolves #32
This PR looks for a non-empty environment variable called
GITTY_LINKSto determine whether to print hyperlinks in the terminal.One thing I noticed is the longer link for branch names (and probably things like numbers, but I think those might be less common unless a repo is on the edge of new index numbers)
I could do some width-checking shenanigans, but I (personally) didn't think it would be worth the extra code checking.