Open extrapixel opened 2 years ago
I am a big fan of the release format that I recommended, obviously -- I scrape hundreds of projects for archiving, and it seems more robust to me -- but defining any of these three processes is better than not. My personal votes would be for:
in that order.
Raw links are good, they just have two downsides compared to releases:
GH pages or any other website don't have either of these problems -- it doesn't require checking every zip into version control, and you can have a general url that always points to the latest version (like a latest release). Still, it lacks something important that both latest releases and raw links have -- an explicit connection to a version number and a preserved version history. More frustrating things happen with ad-hoc download links on websites when 1) the git gets updated, but the files aren't replaced with the correct corresponding build, or 2) the files do get updated, but the old release files are overwritten and lost, et cetera.
At the moment, the txt+zip are added to the repository in the "distribution" folder and served via the "raw" link of GitHub:
In #13 @jeremydouglass suggested to instead use releases and a 'latest' url:
lastly there is GH pages ( https://extrapixel.github.io/gif-animation/ ) generated from the gh-pages branch. I think @hamoid at one point suggested to use GH pages as a distribution mechanism.