Bump pub version

Bump pub version

We seem to be hitting an error on travis:

https://travis-ci.org/dart-lang/sdk/jobs/159136296

  The pubspec for analyzer 0.28.2-alpha.0 from path has version 0.29.0-alpha.0.
  The command "pub get" failed and exited with 65 during .

Looks like the analyzer version bumped forward and was incompatible
with the pubspec.lock entry?  Is there a way to avoid this?

TBR=rnystrom@google.com,jmesserly@google.com

Committed: https://github.com/dart-lang/dev_compiler/commit/ab47c33f3d85fb79bdec72a9ac374e84afcd7b4f

[vsm, 2016-09-12 03:06:39]

Description was changed from

==========
Bump pub version

We seem to be hitting an error on travis:

https://travis-ci.org/dart-lang/sdk/jobs/159136296

  The pubspec for analyzer 0.28.2-alpha.0 from path has version 0.29.0-alpha.0.
  The command "pub get" failed and exited with 65 during .

Looks like the analyzer version bumped forward and was incompatible
with the pubspec.lock entry?  Is there a way to avoid this?

TBR=rnystrom@google.com,jmesserly@google.com
==========

to

==========
Bump pub version

We seem to be hitting an error on travis:

https://travis-ci.org/dart-lang/sdk/jobs/159136296

  The pubspec for analyzer 0.28.2-alpha.0 from path has version 0.29.0-alpha.0.
  The command "pub get" failed and exited with 65 during .

Looks like the analyzer version bumped forward and was incompatible
with the pubspec.lock entry?  Is there a way to avoid this?

TBR=rnystrom@google.com,jmesserly@google.com

Committed:
https://github.com/dart-lang/dev_compiler/commit/ab47c33f3d85fb79bdec72a9ac37...
==========

[vsm, 2016-09-12 03:06:40]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1) manually as
ab47c33f3d85fb79bdec72a9ac374e84afcd7b4f (presubmit successful).

[Jennifer Messerly, 2016-09-12 17:12:14]

LGTM

https://codereview.chromium.org/2336443002/diff/1/pkg/dev_compiler/pubspec.yaml
File pkg/dev_compiler/pubspec.yaml (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2336443002/diff/1/pkg/dev_compiler/pubspec.ya...
pkg/dev_compiler/pubspec.yaml:11: analyzer: ^0.29.0-alpha.0
Should we just make this a file dependency? instead of a dependency_override.
That was my bad :)

[Bob Nystrom, 2016-09-12 18:15:23]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2336443002/diff/1/pkg/dev_compiler/pubspec.yaml
File pkg/dev_compiler/pubspec.yaml (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2336443002/diff/1/pkg/dev_compiler/pubspec.ya...
pkg/dev_compiler/pubspec.yaml:11: analyzer: ^0.29.0-alpha.0
On 2016/09/12 17:12:14, John Messerly wrote:
> Should we just make this a file dependency?

If you do that, you won't be able to also publish dev_compiler. Packages on
pub.dartlang.org can't have regular dependencies onto local files. An override
is probably the right way to handle it.

(Though there are the usual concerns then of making sure you actually test it
without the override so that you know the published version of DDC works with
that version of analyzer.)

[Jennifer Messerly, 2016-09-12 18:19:00]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2336443002/diff/1/pkg/dev_compiler/pubspec.yaml
File pkg/dev_compiler/pubspec.yaml (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2336443002/diff/1/pkg/dev_compiler/pubspec.ya...
pkg/dev_compiler/pubspec.yaml:11: analyzer: ^0.29.0-alpha.0
On 2016/09/12 18:15:23, Bob Nystrom wrote:
> On 2016/09/12 17:12:14, John Messerly wrote:
> > Should we just make this a file dependency?
> 
> If you do that, you won't be able to also publish dev_compiler. Packages on
> http://pub.dartlang.org can't have regular dependencies onto local files. An
override
> is probably the right way to handle it.
> 
> (Though there are the usual concerns then of making sure you actually test it
> without the override so that you know the published version of DDC works with
> that version of analyzer.)

yeah ... I think maybe we want to stop publishing the package. At least I can't
think of a good reason to publish it as we're built as a binary in the SDK
(`dartdevc`), but maybe we'll have a reason to do so later.

[Bob Nystrom, 2016-09-12 20:12:24]

On 2016/09/12 18:19:00, John Messerly wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2336443002/diff/1/pkg/dev_compiler/pubspec.yaml
> File pkg/dev_compiler/pubspec.yaml (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2336443002/diff/1/pkg/dev_compiler/pubspec.ya...
> pkg/dev_compiler/pubspec.yaml:11: analyzer: ^0.29.0-alpha.0
> On 2016/09/12 18:15:23, Bob Nystrom wrote:
> > On 2016/09/12 17:12:14, John Messerly wrote:
> > > Should we just make this a file dependency?
> > 
> > If you do that, you won't be able to also publish dev_compiler. Packages on
> > http://pub.dartlang.org can't have regular dependencies onto local files. An
> override
> > is probably the right way to handle it.
> > 
> > (Though there are the usual concerns then of making sure you actually test
it
> > without the override so that you know the published version of DDC works
with
> > that version of analyzer.)
> 
> yeah ... I think maybe we want to stop publishing the package. At least I
can't
> think of a good reason to publish it as we're built as a binary in the SDK
> (`dartdevc`), but maybe we'll have a reason to do so later.

In that case moving the path dependency to "dependencies" might be a good idea,
because it will *ensure* you don't publish it.

– bob

[vsm, 2016-09-12 20:18:47]

On 2016/09/12 20:12:24, Bob Nystrom wrote:
> On 2016/09/12 18:19:00, John Messerly wrote:
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2336443002/diff/1/pkg/dev_compiler/pubspec.yaml
> > File pkg/dev_compiler/pubspec.yaml (right):
> > 
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2336443002/diff/1/pkg/dev_compiler/pubspec.ya...
> > pkg/dev_compiler/pubspec.yaml:11: analyzer: ^0.29.0-alpha.0
> > On 2016/09/12 18:15:23, Bob Nystrom wrote:
> > > On 2016/09/12 17:12:14, John Messerly wrote:
> > > > Should we just make this a file dependency?
> > > 
> > > If you do that, you won't be able to also publish dev_compiler. Packages
on
> > > http://pub.dartlang.org can't have regular dependencies onto local files.
An
> > override
> > > is probably the right way to handle it.
> > > 
> > > (Though there are the usual concerns then of making sure you actually test
> it
> > > without the override so that you know the published version of DDC works
> with
> > > that version of analyzer.)
> > 
> > yeah ... I think maybe we want to stop publishing the package. At least I
> can't
> > think of a good reason to publish it as we're built as a binary in the SDK
> > (`dartdevc`), but maybe we'll have a reason to do so later.
> 
> In that case moving the path dependency to "dependencies" might be a good
idea,
> because it will *ensure* you don't publish it.
> 
> – bob

I don't see a reason to continue publishing separately (now that we're
distributing a binary with the sdk).  What is the right change to make?  Do we
still need the override?  There is a comment there about package:test and
dart_style.

[Bob Nystrom, 2016-09-12 20:24:23]

On 2016/09/12 20:18:47, vsm wrote:
> On 2016/09/12 20:12:24, Bob Nystrom wrote:
> > On 2016/09/12 18:19:00, John Messerly wrote:
> > >
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2336443002/diff/1/pkg/dev_compiler/pubspec.yaml
> > > File pkg/dev_compiler/pubspec.yaml (right):
> > > 
> > >
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2336443002/diff/1/pkg/dev_compiler/pubspec.ya...
> > > pkg/dev_compiler/pubspec.yaml:11: analyzer: ^0.29.0-alpha.0
> > > On 2016/09/12 18:15:23, Bob Nystrom wrote:
> > > > On 2016/09/12 17:12:14, John Messerly wrote:
> > > > > Should we just make this a file dependency?
> > > > 
> > > > If you do that, you won't be able to also publish dev_compiler. Packages
> on
> > > > http://pub.dartlang.org can't have regular dependencies onto local
files.
> An
> > > override
> > > > is probably the right way to handle it.
> > > > 
> > > > (Though there are the usual concerns then of making sure you actually
test
> > it
> > > > without the override so that you know the published version of DDC works
> > with
> > > > that version of analyzer.)
> > > 
> > > yeah ... I think maybe we want to stop publishing the package. At least I
> > can't
> > > think of a good reason to publish it as we're built as a binary in the SDK
> > > (`dartdevc`), but maybe we'll have a reason to do so later.
> > 
> > In that case moving the path dependency to "dependencies" might be a good
> idea,
> > because it will *ensure* you don't publish it.
> > 
> > – bob
> 
> I don't see a reason to continue publishing separately (now that we're
> distributing a binary with the sdk).  What is the right change to make?  Do we
> still need the override?  There is a comment there about package:test and
> dart_style.

Ah, yes. If you have a shared dependency on analyzer, you'll need to keep it an
override. Unless the versions of test and dart_style that you use also get
analyzer from a local path.

– bob