-
|
I understand mike works by accumulating versions of the docs on the pages branch, but I was wondering if it could instead use the newer artifact deployment system. GitHub hasn't deprecated the branch method yet, but it is marked as the "classic" style and they are encouraging the usage of the actions based method which is certainly cleaner. Does mike have any intention of supporting this? Thanks! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 1 comment 3 replies
-
|
No, there are no plans to change this. What makes this complicated is that mike is built to update shared state across all "artifacts": the list of all deployed versions in |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
From my (limited) understanding, I think the artifact that is deployed is the same content as what you would put on a branch. The deployment just takes the files put in the artifact and publishes them. Could it be possible to redownload that artifact, modify it in a build, then reupload that as the new artifact? Mike doesn't need to use the git history, does it? Really the main advantage of this process is to avoid having an extra branch in the repo for the docs. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
In theory, sure. Though I think that should still be a separate project, since 90% of the work mike does is to manage the More generally, if I were going to add some significant new feature to mike these days, it would probably be to make it easier to use on other Git forces, like SourceHut. It's a shame that despite Git being a decentralized VCS, everyone decided to centralize on a single Git forge. Using GitHub artifacts would just make that harder though. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Sounds good, thanks for the insight! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
In theory, sure. Though I think that should still be a separate project, since 90% of the work mike does is to manage the
gh-pagesbranch. If you get rid of that, you might as well start over from scratch. About the only thing you could share would be theversions.jsoncode.More generally, if I were going to add some significant new feature to mike these days, it would probably be to make it easier to use on other Git forces, like SourceHut. It's a shame that despite Git being a decentralized VCS, everyone decided to centralize on a single Git forge. Using GitHub artifacts would just make that harder though.