Open Nick-Hall opened 3 years ago
The reason I made the workflow run on push during the writing of the flatpak manifest was because I wanted to download the resulting archive to test the changes to make sure they worked on one of my computers, but I could see how running a workflow on each push could become undesirable. I would expect the flatpak will need to be tested and perhaps modified when Gramps 5.2 comes out, before pushing the upgrade to flathub.
Would this model of publishing releases be acceptable? https://github.com/gramps-project/flatpak/releases
I did about 70 commits between 5.1.6-1 and 5.2.0-rc1. Most of them were troubleshooting dependency updates, but some were normal changes for newer runtimes and such that have to be worked through with every release. I doubt that any time a workflow is automatically triggered for a new Gramps release, that a functional flatpak will get created because other changes usually are required too.
After several years, I expect that Flathub will remove Gnome Runtime 45 and other required runtimes from its public repository, so the 5.2.0-rc1 release will likely stop being installable at that time.
Yes, that's perfectly acceptable. Thanks for your efforts in maintaining this.
It appears that we can run a workflow when a release is published. See the documentation on events for details.