-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 303
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
no-check option for asset uploading, default for release #3304
Conversation
just running |
scripts/upload-assets.py
Outdated
print("Error: Files already exist: %s" % url) | ||
sys.exit(1) | ||
|
||
if not args.no_check: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
is there a risk this will get us into a weird state where two releases are on top of each other? do we need to delete the old folder if it exists?
scripts/release.sh
Outdated
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ fi | |||
DIR=$(dirname "$0") | |||
cd "$DIR/.." | |||
|
|||
./scripts/upload-assets.py latest | |||
./scripts/upload-assets.py latest --force |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm... honestly not sure if we want this or if we want to allow users to pipe the --force
arg thru via make release
/ have a separate invocation upload-assets.py latest --clean
that JUST deletes the existing bucket and then user can run make release
without the --force
flag. thoughts?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I can come up with some pros and cons but they seem minor enough and the impact of this decision small enough that it's probably not worth our time.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually, I'm in favor of the --clean
option. As Nick has been saying, we should move the release process to CI, and the --clean
option allows us to handle that error separately on our laptops.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
done!
@nicks took another swing at this cuz it was bothering me this morning! |
Alternate proposal, if you're interested: change the asset server to always fetch assets by sha and take asset uploads out of the release process |
alternative proposal #2 - bake assets into the binary, cf https://go.googlesource.com/proposal/+/master/design/draft-embed.md, #2608 |
actually, nm, i guess embedded assets wouldn't fix the whole problem, since we'd still have to do asset releases for snapshots |
Hello @nicks, @jazzdan,
Please review the following commits I made in branch upload-assets-messaging:
6d5a606 (2020-05-07 18:24:25 -0400)
no-check option for asset uploading, default for release
e6e313b (2020-05-07 17:34:35 -0400)
scripts: upload-assets.py tells you what to do in case of conflict
Code review reminders, by giving a LGTM you attest that: