grass

grass copied to clipboard

Generates Git derived data files, which are added to release tarballs of both *.tar.gz and tar.xz formats. Accompanied by md5 and sha256 checksum files.

Solves #3430, depends on #3435.

Initially put up as draft, if this agreed upon the howto_release.md need to be updated.

This has also to be combined somehow with create_release_draft.yml.

Updated this workflow to re-use (update) create_release_draft.yml.

Now it also contains the core_modules_with_last_commit.patch, but not the json file (as it is already included in tarball).

This keeps the previous behaviour and adds the new release packages.

Assets created:

ChangeLog.gz
core_modules_with_last_commit.patch
grass-${version}.tar.gz
grass-${version}.tar.gz.md5
grass-${version}.tar.gz.sha256
grass-${version}.tar.xz
grass-${version}.tar.xz.md5
grass-${version}.tar.xz.sha256
Source code (zip)
Source code (tar.gz)

This now fails because it is missing #3435.

Se my bogus test release for result.

Side note: This workflow (before this PR) use the two https://github.com/actions/upload-release-asset https://github.com/actions/create-release actions, which are both no more maintained (archived).

The single use of https://github.com/softprops/action-gh-release replaces them and also the https://github.com/actions/upload-artifact.

Was this ready and intended to be merged? I know we need to ignore the failure in the new workflow for now due to to missing parts

Was this ready and intended to be merged?

Yes. As this now re-use the create_release_draft.yml workflow, Readme doesn't need to be updated (I believe).

Is #3435 still a requirement? If so we could sprint it up a little

Before merging this PR, it might need a new title, since it isn't a new workflow. Also, is the existing workflow file name still appropriate for what it now does? If ever it is changed, since the contents of the workflow changed a lot, maybe we would need a mini PR that renames the file before this PR is merged, to be able to follow the file history after renames.

Before merging this PR, it might need a new title, since it isn't a new workflow.

Done.

Also, is the existing workflow file name still appropriate for what it now does?

I think the file name is quite ok, reflecting what it does, no need to change.