You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Recently, I was considering adding some features to this action, notably adding the ability to produce signed releases (specifically, signing the checksums file). As I started looking into this, I realized that goreleaser already does this, as well as many other things this action doesn't do:
It offers a lot more power and flexibility in what is included in the resulting release archive files.
This includes templating files, so for example you can update the copyright year in the LICENSE file to match the release date.
Deb, RPM, macOS DMG, MSI, Chocolatey, etc. support.
Integration with SBOM creation tools.
And more
So I'm wondering whether it's worth continuing to invest in this action. It seems like using goreleaser to release a Rust project is fairly easy. It even supports building, though I think for that I'd still use my actions-rust-cross action, as I don't think goreleaser would make it easier to do cross-platform builds.
Will people who use this action see this issue? If you do, I'd greatly appreciate your feedback! Take a look at goreleaser, focusing specifically on the parts related to releasing, not building. After looking, do you still prefer this actions? If so, why?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
autarch
changed the title
Should people just use goreleaser instead?
Should people just use goreleaser instead of this action?
Feb 16, 2025
For those following along, I should've done a little more homework on this. I was experimenting a bit with switching one of my projects to Goreleaser, and I realized that support for prebuilt binaries is a paid feature. So since I'm not keen on redoing my entire build process (which already works just fine), I think Goreleaser is out of the running.
I'll take a closer look at cargo-dist now too.
The general spirit of my question remains, though. Should I continue to develop actions-rust-release or not?
And for further follow-up, from reading the cargo-dist docs, I couldn't find anything about not handling the build as well. Sigh.
Recently, I was considering adding some features to this action, notably adding the ability to produce signed releases (specifically, signing the checksums file). As I started looking into this, I realized that goreleaser already does this, as well as many other things this action doesn't do:
LICENSE
file to match the release date.So I'm wondering whether it's worth continuing to invest in this action. It seems like using goreleaser to release a Rust project is fairly easy. It even supports building, though I think for that I'd still use my actions-rust-cross action, as I don't think goreleaser would make it easier to do cross-platform builds.
Will people who use this action see this issue? If you do, I'd greatly appreciate your feedback! Take a look at goreleaser, focusing specifically on the parts related to releasing, not building. After looking, do you still prefer this actions? If so, why?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: