Provide a link for users wanting exact or more versions #52
Conversation
|
@bryanmacfarlane Could you review? |
|
I'm going to propose some alternative text - busy in a few meetings so I should be able to follow up later today or the weekend. |
|
I just pushed a commit to simplify and address your comments. Could you maybe merge this PR and then you could refine the text later? (it's likely also more efficient) |
Agreed! I pushed a simpler statement in the meantime. A simpler statement is better without confusing folks about details of the cache, specific version links (which puts you down a wrong road) and then clarifying details around that. I updated readme to simply point out to bind to minor versions and which minor versions are everywhere. https://github.com/actions/setup-ruby/blob/master/README.md#setup-ruby |
|
I also don't want to point to the prebuilt Ruby work until we decide on the plan and if / when we're going to fund it. |
|
That's not very nice, I spent some time to address your feedback here and basically you push something that would conflict hopelessly with this PR. Moving on,
I don't understand that, it's just the mention of a plan and #44 (comment) makes it clear it's a wanted direction, no? Could you merge the added paragraph in this updated PR? I would think most Ruby users in Actions will want exact versions or more versions, so it seems very useful to have a link for a way to achieve that. |
|
@eregon - apologies. I thought we both agreed that it was critical that we get the point about only binding to minor versions in the README asap while we iterate on the other comments. Before your recent force push, there was quite a bit of of information and suggestions we were iterating on. So I pushed the one sentence we agreed was time critical. With the latest force push, the topic seems to have changed to recommending another marketplace action from the readme of this action. I'm following up with product but I believe that's the role of the marketplace fly out (type ruby in that and yours comes up)
|
|
The diff before the force push (no choice since there was a conflict) is here: master...eregon:patch-2-original. I thought from your commit to master you wanted something significantly simpler, which seems good indeed so I dropped the extra details.
In #44 (comment) it is clear this action aims to be "what the community wants". I think adding a sentence in the README about this is a great way to achieve that, until this action itself supports that. I don't think people have the reflex to go to the Marketplace when there is an official action for it, so this would help them get what they want to do with GitHub Actions. Another point of view is this action currently fits a set of use cases but also does not meet other use cases (more and exact versions) that would be expected by many for "setting up Ruby". I believe having a mention and link in the README for other use cases and acknowledging them seems a lot more welcoming for those users than nothing about it. |
|
|
Thanks @MSP-Greg - yeah I think there's many separate issues and topics here so it may be best to just create separate PR for each :).
For #1, I think the workflow in this repo should validate it using |
|
If it's about wanting to avoid linking to a specific action, it could be a link to https://github.com/marketplace?utf8=%E2%9C%93&type=actions&query=Setup+Ruby https://github.com/marketplace?utf8=%E2%9C%93&type=actions&query=Ruby OTOH has a lot of actions unrelated to setting a Ruby interpreter, so that's going be rather unhelpful (even more so in the future with more actions). I still think a direct link to https://github.com/eregon/use-ruby-action would be more useful for people reading this action's README and wanting more/exact versions. AFAIK none of the other setup ruby actions is nearly as complete. |
See https://github.com/MSP-Greg/github-actions-ruby-info/actions. I checked before mentioning it...
I added actions/runner-images#281 (comment). Not sure if it was clear... Maybe not long term, but until a decision is made on how to move forward, I think the Ruby community would benefit from its inclusion/mention. Could end up with a lot of repetitive issues without it... |
|
@MSP-Greg - thanks. Yep. I added a workflow in this repo so it's always validating all versions. @eregon - thanks. let me chat with product. @ethomson @chrispat |
|
☝️ in the meantime, I was going to update readme to 2.7 after dinner unless someone beats me to it. |
|
I can update it. Ok to switch to |
|
... the workflow should confirm they're equivalent 😄 |
|
See #54 |
eregon
changed the title
|
I rebased on top of the latest changes and adjusted the PR title. |
|
@MSP-Greg I merged your PR ☝️ - thanks for that. Regarding links to other market place actions on the readme main page, I spoke to product ( @ethomson and @chrispat ). As pointed out above, there is a built in experience to discover other actions from the marketplace (below). We do not want start a pattern of adding links or recommending specific market place actions. We also don't want to add a link to every repo - that role has a built in experience. If the demand for specific versions becomes an issue, It will push the priority of #49 ( note that we're discussing that right now as well ). In addition, the actions/setup-* actions distribute binaries are either built and distributed by GitHub (with the chain secured) or pulled from an official or organization distribution channel (e.g. setup-node pulls from the official node distribution) in coordination with the virtual-environments team that manages that. Meeting with them today. This discussion has taken on many many different topics and changes so we should close this out. We ❤️ the marketplace and the options for users to discover other great actions and tools like TruffleRuby and others.
|
I agree - thanks, @bryanmacfarlane for summarizing it like this. Overall, I think that giving actions visibility through the marketplace -- at the top level of the marketplace. |
|
What about the idea of linking to a search such as this on the marketplace then? The order on https://github.com/marketplace?utf8=%E2%9C%93&type=actions&query=Ruby seems rather random to me, although it's always the same. It's not ordered by stars, that's clear. The current marketplace gives me no confidence that a user will be able to find relevant actions, when e.g. the number of Ruby actions growth to multiple dozen actions. Even now it's already hard to find. |
* Many Ruby users will want something like that as the issues on this repository make very clear. * Once actions#44 is addressed we can remove this.
I'm not sure what you meant, maybe a few words are missing? @bryanmacfarlane @ethomson I updated the PR with a link to the marketplace. It looks like this:
I think such a general statement is going to be useful for users for a while, until this action supports all those versions. If you still disagree, then close this PR.
The demand has been clear since at least September and a very large number of users have been disappointed by Is acknowledging in the README that there are other complementary "Setup Ruby" actions so hard? Yes, this can be removed when this action supports as many versions as I made a proposal to get this done in a something like a week in #48. You want to make this your own way, that's all fine. But it makes me think it might take a couple months. And until then Ruby users are directed by GitHub to this action, which provides only 4 Ruby versions and no way to test against a specific version. |
|
As we pointed out above the problem of discovering alternative actions is the role of the marketplace
This is not about one way or the other. This is about clear criteria. We stated:
|
|
The discussion in the PR has taken on so many topics and issues from the marketplace, distributions, minor version binding etc.. Thank you for the very active discussion. ☝️ Summary is above. If there are further questions, issues or questions, please open topic scoped issues. For the capability to consume specific versions, the discussion should be in ADR #49 |
Original PR title: