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.

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

Switch from 'build' to 'dist' #92

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jan 12, 2024
Merged

Switch from 'build' to 'dist' #92

merged 5 commits into from
Jan 12, 2024

Conversation

joanlopez
Copy link
Contributor

It replaces build with dist, as suggested by @oleiade, as the latter is more popular and widely used.

It also adds a check in the main pipeline, to guarantee that the main branch always has an up-to-date and consistent build within the dist directory, which works in combination with #90, where a change was introduced to make enforce the Webpack version, for the sake of reproducibility.

Thanks!

@joanlopez joanlopez requested a review from oleiade January 9, 2024 15:58
@joanlopez joanlopez requested a review from a team as a code owner January 9, 2024 15:58
@joanlopez joanlopez requested review from olegbespalov and removed request for a team January 9, 2024 15:58
Copy link

@olegbespalov olegbespalov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

TBH, I don't have the preferences on the name of the directory, so whatever you think fits better 👍

I still think that it's better not to keep builds under the source control and keep only the releases, and one of the reasons why I pushed back on that was that it could break users' workflows. This renaming could also hypothetically do the same thing, hopefully with a straight migration.

@joanlopez
Copy link
Contributor Author

I still think that it's better not to keep builds under the source control and keep only the releases, and one of the reasons why I pushed back on that was that it could break users' workflows. This renaming could also hypothetically do the same thing, hopefully with a straight migration.

Honestly, I don't have strong preferences either, but it's true after a quick search I realized dist is actually way more popular.

Regarding the users' workflows, I think this is just an intermediate step, and the biggest benefit I see from it is that at least it ensures consistency on the build. I hope all this will become simpler as soon as we start putting some automation in place. For instance, having the release workflow now it's one step further towards there.

In an ideal world, I'd also prefer to keep builds outside of the versioned control. In fact, I'd also prefer to re-evaluate that need in the (near?) future, and if we actually need that, explore other options (for instance, could we push the artifacts from every build somewhere usable for users? similar to latest or master tags with Docker images or NPM libraries). That of course would be breaking in some way as well, but honestly I don't care that much about how breaking is changing the output directory, while we keep the possibility for users to keep using whatever is in main to be imported and used directly, which I guess is the main goal for keeping the build version controlled, at least as soon as we don't have releases more automated and we keep new features or bug fixes not unreleased from time to time.

@joanlopez joanlopez merged commit e49d277 into main Jan 12, 2024
3 checks passed
@oleiade oleiade deleted the build-to-dist branch September 24, 2024 08:08
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants