Binary as part of GitHub Release

[amra]

hackerschoice/gsocket releases should contain release binaries.

Currently, all releases miss binaries and contain only sources. Binaries are stored in a different GitHub repository. And it is inconvenient and confusing.

GitHub provide release API: https://docs.github.com/en/rest/releases/releases#create-a-release

[SkyperTHC]

hmm. There is a reason for this: gsocket should be the source only. IT's a development repository. Binaries are not for developers but for users. So it makes sense to separate developers from users.

We do not bundle the binaries at all into a release tarball. Hmm. we could do it but what's the use case? Why not pull it from the binary rep instead and why duplicate the binaries to the source rep?

[amra]

I expressed myself badly. The idea is to take the binary file and upload it to a particular GitHub release as an asset.

With a release I meant GitHub Release feature.

Then a single GitHub Release will contain:

• Release tarball containing only source code
• Binaries (as an Asset)
  • For multiple platforms
• Release notes
  • Including links to related GitHub issues
• Other metadata

Comments

There is a reason for this: gsocket should be the source only. IT's a development repository. Binaries are not for developers but for users. So it makes sense to separate developers from users.

The binary should not be part of a git repository, which should only contain only source code.

We do not bundle the binaries at all into a release tarball.

I agree on that too.

Example - Atom editor releases

[SkyperTHC]

this has now been done. thank you for your suggestions and explanations.