-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 207
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
RFC: Simplify the workflow for dealing with external assets #5454
Conversation
The way I added the third-party licenses (using a @okurz As you suggested I just used the main branch here. The advantage is indeed that we don't have to do any extra work. No pipelines are required to update anything as one would simply add/update the files in Git as part of the PR that needs the change. I guess the only downside of this approach is that we add almost 100 000 lines of code. That is 6.4 MiB (without Git overhead). Of course one would need to download these files one way or another so perhaps this isn't a big deal. On the upside we could now easily track code changes in thrid-party code and never run into download issues when setting up a development environment or when updating the asset cache for the rpm package (which we now would not have to care about at all). |
Seeing this PR I wonder about two points:
|
With this change asset pack will find all assets already in place and thus skip the download.
Maybe that's a good idea, indeed. Of course npm will not put files where we need them but a simple script could copy files to the right location. Or we just specify a local path in asset pack. |
* Add all external assets directly to our Git repository so no additional downloads are necessary when starting the web application for the first time * Adjust `.gitignore` accordingly * Remove/update relevant documentation * Clarify licensing of our code vs. third-party code in the README * WIP: Add licenses for third-party code now present in our repository * Specify the files the LICENSE applies to at the beginning of those files * Add MIT licenses individually because each MIT license is technically a distinct license * SO FAR ONLY TWO LICENSES HAVE BEEN ADDED; this should be enough for demonstrational purposes * See https://progress.opensuse.org/issues/153427
74c85b5
to
2c12ab2
Compare
Closing in favor of #5463 which is more promising. |
.gitignore
accordingly