Conversation
|
" Given that there are several things I didn't do and you still have to do some thing locally - I'm not quite sure it's that useful." Currently my release process is:
How would it look now with the current state of this PR? |
|
I think install.sh could use /latest rather than the version number and just work |
|
Sorry, I got carried away a little bit :) For some reason I though that you are running Let me change Initially I also wanted to pull
|
|
Now the release is initiated with Also, Techinically, you can move |
Hello,
The PR has a workflow which:
It can probably also do AUR release, but I've never worked with AUR so not quite sure if I should touch. Though I've found an action which seemingly does what's needed.
The workflow also doesn't touch
site/install.shas I don't like changing repository from a workflow. Should probably become a pre-release activity...The build is /slow/: qemu is slow to compile grafito and I'm too lazy to split the build into a matrix for architectures. But it can be done.
I didn't check that release notes for the GH releases are exactly the same, but I use the same
git cdiffto generate them.https://github.com/softprops/action-gh-releaseis used for the release creation so maybe use their built-in algorithm for release notes?I also had to change BakedFileHandler locked version as the previous one was giving me troubles.
Also the workflow changes release file naming slightly (
grafitofor amd64 is nowgrafito.amd64). And the docker image has a single name for all platforms.And finally, I didn't change all the scripts that use Dockerfiles. The
build_static.shis probably broken now.The workflow is triggered by pushing a tag into the repository.
The idea is to have a release prepared, then tag it and get docker images + GH release in one go.
Let me know your thoughts on this. Given that there are several things I didn't do and you still have to do some thing locally - I'm not quite sure it's that useful. But I'm happy to tweak this further anyways:)