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

Script Hugo release process #3358

Closed
bep opened this Issue Apr 18, 2017 · 6 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@bep
Member

bep commented Apr 18, 2017

@bep bep self-assigned this Apr 18, 2017

@bep bep added the Enhancement label Apr 18, 2017

@bep bep modified the milestones: v0.21, v0.20.3 Apr 18, 2017

bep added a commit to bep/hugo that referenced this issue Apr 19, 2017

@bep

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bep

bep Apr 22, 2017

Member

@moorereason @spf13 @digitalcraftsman

Have a look at

https://github.com/bep/hugo/releases/tag/v0.20.110

And esp. the file names.

There are some subtle differences to get it consistent, but the main ones are like before to keep old Wercker deploys working etc.

  • But I have changed all the Unix to tar.gz as archive format.
  • This is a change that may break something, but I'm not sure what the reasoning behind the old zip files for all but the Linux builds. I would think zip should be a more problematic format on non-Windows.
  • I can change that back, maybe if you think of a good reason ...

(also: I seem to have "lost" the deb builds in the example above, I will fix that).

Member

bep commented Apr 22, 2017

@moorereason @spf13 @digitalcraftsman

Have a look at

https://github.com/bep/hugo/releases/tag/v0.20.110

And esp. the file names.

There are some subtle differences to get it consistent, but the main ones are like before to keep old Wercker deploys working etc.

  • But I have changed all the Unix to tar.gz as archive format.
  • This is a change that may break something, but I'm not sure what the reasoning behind the old zip files for all but the Linux builds. I would think zip should be a more problematic format on non-Windows.
  • I can change that back, maybe if you think of a good reason ...

(also: I seem to have "lost" the deb builds in the example above, I will fix that).

@bep

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bep
Member

bep commented Apr 22, 2017

@moorereason

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@moorereason

moorereason Apr 22, 2017

Contributor

I hadn't paid much attention to our old release filenames. They're a mess!

Agree on the zip vs tar.gz change.

If we keep the "32bit" replacement, I prefer "32bit" to "32-bit." Same for "64-bit." The extra hyphen just adds more noise to a busy filename.

Personal preference, but I prefer all lowercase filenames.

Overall, looks much cleaner. 👍

Contributor

moorereason commented Apr 22, 2017

I hadn't paid much attention to our old release filenames. They're a mess!

Agree on the zip vs tar.gz change.

If we keep the "32bit" replacement, I prefer "32bit" to "32-bit." Same for "64-bit." The extra hyphen just adds more noise to a busy filename.

Personal preference, but I prefer all lowercase filenames.

Overall, looks much cleaner. 👍

@bep

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bep

bep Apr 22, 2017

Member

If we keep the "32bit" replacement, I prefer "32bit" to "32-bit."

I'm not changing the Linux filename at all (it would break too many scripts, even some of mine).

Member

bep commented Apr 22, 2017

If we keep the "32bit" replacement, I prefer "32bit" to "32-bit."

I'm not changing the Linux filename at all (it would break too many scripts, even some of mine).

@moorereason

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@moorereason

moorereason Apr 23, 2017

Contributor

What do you mean? Our existing releases use "32bit" not "32-bit".

Contributor

moorereason commented Apr 23, 2017

What do you mean? Our existing releases use "32bit" not "32-bit".

@bep

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bep

bep Apr 23, 2017

Member

What do you mean? Our existing releases use "32bit" not "32-bit".

Which is the reason I ask other people to look at it ... I stared at those filenames side-by side, and they looked the same to me ... Thanks, I will fix the bit.

Member

bep commented Apr 23, 2017

What do you mean? Our existing releases use "32bit" not "32-bit".

Which is the reason I ask other people to look at it ... I stared at those filenames side-by side, and they looked the same to me ... Thanks, I will fix the bit.

bep added a commit to bep/hugo that referenced this issue Apr 24, 2017

Automate the Hugo release process
This commit adds a work flow aroung GoReleaser to get the Hugo release process automated and more uniform:

* It can be run fully automated or in two steps to allow for manual edits of the relase notes.
* It supports both patch and full releases.
* It fetches author, issue, repo info. etc. for the release notes from GitHub.
* The file names produced are mainly the same as before, but we no use tar.gz as archive for all Unix versions.
* There isn't a fully automated CI setup in place yet, but the release tag is marked in the commit message with "[ci deploy]"

Fixes #3358

@bep bep closed this in 7f6430d Apr 24, 2017

bep added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 24, 2017

Automate the Hugo release process
This commit adds a work flow aroung GoReleaser to get the Hugo release process automated and more uniform:

* It can be run fully automated or in two steps to allow for manual edits of the relase notes.
* It supports both patch and full releases.
* It fetches author, issue, repo info. etc. for the release notes from GitHub.
* The file names produced are mainly the same as before, but we no use tar.gz as archive for all Unix versions.
* There isn't a fully automated CI setup in place yet, but the release tag is marked in the commit message with "[ci deploy]"

Fixes #3358

bep added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 24, 2017

bep added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 24, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment