Skip to content
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

Add support for monorepos #170

Open
Stanzilla opened this issue Jul 11, 2024 · 4 comments
Open

Add support for monorepos #170

Stanzilla opened this issue Jul 11, 2024 · 4 comments

Comments

@Stanzilla
Copy link
Member

Given a monorepo with several addons, we'd want to be able to release them separately, each with their own toc etc. This currently does not work because the packager always requires a took at the root.

A workaround is to just copy the files into the root in an action step every time but native support would be preferred.

@Meorawr
Copy link
Contributor

Meorawr commented Jul 11, 2024

I've on-and-off wanted something similar myself, but I usually end up halting at some of the other issues that crop up with the packaging process - eg. versioning being tag based, and auto-changelog generation. How would you envisage those working in a monorepo world?

@Justw8
Copy link
Member

Justw8 commented Jul 11, 2024

I've just made multiple.pkgmeta files and having different steps for them, you also don't have issues with one stopping the deployment of another this way. Why would the packager itself need support when you can make a setup around it?

@Stanzilla
Copy link
Member Author

I've on-and-off wanted something similar myself, but I usually end up halting at some of the other issues that crop up with the packaging process - eg. versioning being tag based, and auto-changelog generation. How would you envisage those working in a monorepo world?

Good questions, I think it would require manual versions in the toc? I have not thought about it too deeply yet.

@Stanzilla
Copy link
Member Author

Stanzilla commented Jul 11, 2024

I've just made multiple.pkgmeta files and having different steps for them, you also don't have issues with one stopping the deployment of another this way. Why would the packager itself need support when you can make a setup around it?

Frankly because it is 'a bit ugly', that's really the only problem and it feels like it could break at any point and having an official solution would be preferred.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants