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

Consider using Equinox or other release tool #2

Closed
willglynn opened this issue Apr 27, 2016 · 3 comments
Closed

Consider using Equinox or other release tool #2

willglynn opened this issue Apr 27, 2016 · 3 comments

Comments

@willglynn
Copy link
Contributor

Equinox handles a lot of open problems:

See also the blog post announcing Equinox. It's free for open-source tools, and signing in with GitHub instantly gets you a sandbox account to try it out.

I have no particular connection to Equinox, and there are some other options in this space. I think FSM should use one of them.

@mroote
Copy link
Member

mroote commented Apr 27, 2016

I think it might be better to use a more general build tool such as Travis in order to get some CI features also.

@willglynn
Copy link
Contributor Author

This would be complimentary to CI. Travis would handle making sure nothing broke during development (pushing commits and evaluating PRs), while Equinox would handle user-facing releases (downloads and updates).

@mroote
Copy link
Member

mroote commented Apr 27, 2016

I read a bit more about Equinox and I see what you mean. This could help deployment to users in the future if there are many new versions of the server manager. If someone has a deployed server updating may be easier for them.

Another option might be to make the application build in a Dockerfile and distribute the application through Docker Hub.

@mroote mroote closed this as completed Oct 18, 2016
mroote pushed a commit that referenced this issue Apr 17, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants