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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Improve How We Get Node Binaries #791

Closed
designatednerd opened this issue Sep 24, 2019 · 4 comments
Closed

Improve How We Get Node Binaries #791

designatednerd opened this issue Sep 24, 2019 · 4 comments
Labels
build-issue Issues occurring when attempting to build codegen Issues related to or arising from code generation enhancement Issues outlining new things we want to do or things that will make our lives as devs easier
Milestone
0.18.0

Comments

@designatednerd
Copy link
Contributor

As (extensively) discussed in #766, including the binaries for codegen in the repo will bloat the repo over the long term. While this is better than Node Hell, it's still not great as a long-term solution.

We need to evaluate a few of the suggested ideas for this, including:

  • A separate GH repo which can be added as an SPM/Carthage/Pod dependency (concern: Is this just moving the repo bloat problem to another repo people have to download anyway?)
  • Downloading from an artifact repository, like an S3 bucket (concern: What happens when users can't connect to that bucket after installation, killing their entire build?)
  • Downloading from GH releases (concern: How can we test this before a new version is released?)
@designatednerd designatednerd mentioned this issue Sep 24, 2019
Merged
@designatednerd designatednerd added enhancement Issues outlining new things we want to do or things that will make our lives as devs easier build-issue Issues occurring when attempting to build codegen Issues related to or arising from code generation labels Sep 24, 2019
@zzal
Copy link

zzal commented Sep 25, 2019

While we’re here, why not leaving the "iOS" terminology in favour of something more relevant. Like "apollo-swift" of "apollo-for-macOS-iOS-iPadOS-watchOS-tvOS".
Just saying.

@designatednerd
Copy link
Contributor Author

@zzal I don't believe that's relevant to this issue - if you'd like to start a longer discussion about that please open a new issue (short answer: The lib itself is already just Apollo, and renaming the repo comes with a pile of issues that I don't think are worth the semantic clarity).

This was referenced Oct 19, 2019
Closed
Merged
@designatednerd
Copy link
Contributor Author

@koenpunt see #855

@designatednerd designatednerd added this to the 0.18.0 milestone Oct 22, 2019
@designatednerd
Copy link
Contributor Author

Shipped!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
build-issue Issues occurring when attempting to build codegen Issues related to or arising from code generation enhancement Issues outlining new things we want to do or things that will make our lives as devs easier
Projects
None yet
Milestone
0.18.0
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@zzal @designatednerd