Foundation laying #15
Conversation
logikal
force-pushed
the
foundation-laying
branch
2 times, most recently
from
9e461e2 to
cebe7db
Compare
logikal
force-pushed
the
foundation-laying
branch
from
cebe7db to
86d5208
Compare
|
As for what Semver tools to use, there's a bunch out there, but 'verified' ones are slim pickings: |
| @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
do we want to check in our .vscode? generally I don't think we should check in editor settings.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm checking just the 'you should use these extensions" suggestion and a shared workspace dictionary for spellcheck in.
I agree checking in .vscode settings that changed fonts or themes or other whatnot would be too far. This just pops up a "the authors of this repo suggest these extensions, do you want to install them?" modal. I think that's pretty useful without being intrusive.
Especially because CI is going to run linting and fail commits that don't pass, getting that all the way into the editor is useful, and doing it via README is fine, but not the best UX.
| - name: Checkout | ||
| uses: actions/checkout@v4 | ||
|
|
||
| - name: Trunk Code Quality |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we have a Trunk account? I'm fine with adding trunk if that is a tool the company wants to adopt
There was a problem hiding this comment.
trunk doesn't require an account, trunk-the-tool knows its running in CI and doesn't need any interaction with trunk-the-service. trunk accounts are optional and we don't need the paid account, I think.
I don't think the company needs to adopt it for us to use it in this repo.
| @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ | |||
| # EditorConfig is awesome: https://EditorConfig.org | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🤔 never used this before. does it work with nvim? :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These editors come bundled with native support for EditorConfig. Everything should just work
includes image and link to vim
| @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@ | |||
| name: Setup GPG | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"technically" this is a "shared workflow" not an action, shared actions are a bit different? 🤔 Maybe this is splitting hairs and it's fine... probably? at least for now I don't think people will care or understand the difference.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
d'oh, you're right. I'll rename this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually, this is an action, right?. a 'composite action'.
It has no jobs:, on:, or other things required to be a workflow.
|
These pull requests need to be merged for this to be safe: https://github.com/citrusleaf/artifact-sign/pull/1 |
|
There was one that is in a pull request that is in review aerospike/helm-aerospike-vector-search#11 I think you are good to go @logikal |
logikal
force-pushed
the
foundation-laying
branch
from
9ad1093 to
bd01554
Compare
To discuss
previously, the signing action was in a
devopsdirectory; this could be useful from aCODEOWNERSpoint of view, but I've moved it toactionsbecause I want to remove all imagined barriers (and re-org-proof directories) from inner-sourcing.🚨 this will break consumers of the current signing action. 🚨
TODO:
n,n.n,n.n.n,latest) tags