Add a workflow to build gems consistently

[ashmaroli]

Summary

Use GH Actions to build gem.
(Push to Rubygems.org manually)

With this Ruby version and platform remains consistent when triggered by different maintainers.

Context

As part of responding to #8826 (which will be closed after v4.2.2 is shipped and a release post is published).
This will be back ported to 4.2-stable and 3.9-stable.

[ashmaroli]

Since this workflow will not be triggered for the current context, you may view the run on my fork at https://github.com/ashmaroli/jekyll/actions/runs/1291299525 for analysis.

[mattr-]

What do you think about evolving this action so that it can be used to release the gem? We could use the push of the tag to trigger this workflow instead of the commit message, and then set up the actions secrets to push the gem.

We might want to create a jekyllbot user on rubygems so that the authentication is not tied to our accounts as well.

I really like the idea of getting the process of making a release off our local machines. Thanks for getting this started.

[ashmaroli]

What do you think about evolving this action so that it can be used to release the gem?

Our release process for backports is not straight-forward and involves switching branches multiple commits. Automating that is definitely beneficial but I didn't do that in the initial phase to have greater control n err on the safer side.

We might want to create a jekyllbot user on rubygems so that the authentication is not tied to our accounts as well.

👍

[parkr]

I setup a jekyllbot RubyGems account. I'm all for automating this, especially if it were as simple as adding a Git tag. I have added a secret called RUBYGEMS_GEM_PUSH_API_KEY to the org for use in our gem repos. Right now jekyllbot doesn't have access to anything, but it'd be cool to validate with a gem that's less important (maybe like a Jekyll-import or something?). What do you think?

[ashmaroli]

it'd be cool to validate with a gem that's less important (maybe like a Jekyll-import or something?)...

We could use https://github.com/jekyll/jekyll-test-gem-plugin for this purpose.
Since it is not consumer-oriented and is intuitively named, we could play around with it without being concerned of side-effects.

[parkr]

We can run this once we give jekyllbot the appropriate permissions for the gem.

[ashmaroli]

@jekyllbot: merge +dev