docs(ref): Establish publish best practices#12745
Conversation
Inspired by rust-lang#841 and conversations at RustConf. At RustConf, someone was talking to me about the lack or inconsistent use of best practices within the crate ecosystem. We have a challenge of needing to help users get up and going who can't research every last decision while not over-encouraging the status quo, leading to stagnation. I do have a bias in this conversation as the maintainer of one of these tools which is why I decided to pick an ordering without judgement. I picked alphabetical ordering before sorting and realizing this puts my own crate first.
|
r? @ehuss (rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
weihanglo
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What's the criteria if somebody wants to put their release tool in the list? Should we make it clear in this PR thread, or we'll discuss it case by case?
Apart from that, looks nice!
| > - [cargo-smart-release](https://crates.io/crates/cargo-smart-release) | ||
| > - [release-plz](https://crates.io/crates/release-plz) | ||
| > | ||
| > For more, see [crates.io](https://crates.io/search?q=cargo%20release) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| > For more, see [crates.io](https://crates.io/search?q=cargo%20release) | |
| > For more, see [crates.io](https://crates.io/search?q=cargo%20release). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not sure if "cargo release" is the correct keyword, but yet I can't see any better alternative 😆.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Typo fixed.
Unsure how to make the search term any better. It seems to cover a lot of cases for command-line focused releases though that leaves out tools like release-plz. The release keyword isn't universally used and is too vague, covering a lot of other cases.
I've noted in the PR why I chose the crates I did. I think we'll need to handle it on a case-by-case basis though I expect a lot of cases to be obvious (brand-new tool that barely does anything is likely not something worth including). |
|
Thanks! @bors r+ |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
Update cargo 4 commits in e6aabe8b3fcf639be3a5bf68e77853bd7b3fa27d..59596f0f31a94fde48b5aa7e945cd0b7ceca9620 2023-09-26 16:31:53 +0000 to 2023-09-29 19:29:17 +0000 - refactor: Switch from termcolor to anstream (rust-lang/cargo#12751) - Add missing `strip` entries in `dev` and `release` profiles. (rust-lang/cargo#12748) - Add better suggestion for the unsupported silent flag (rust-lang/cargo#12723) - docs(ref): Establish publish best practices (rust-lang/cargo#12745) r? ghost
Update cargo 4 commits in e6aabe8b3fcf639be3a5bf68e77853bd7b3fa27d..59596f0f31a94fde48b5aa7e945cd0b7ceca9620 2023-09-26 16:31:53 +0000 to 2023-09-29 19:29:17 +0000 - refactor: Switch from termcolor to anstream (rust-lang/cargo#12751) - Add missing `strip` entries in `dev` and `release` profiles. (rust-lang/cargo#12748) - Add better suggestion for the unsupported silent flag (rust-lang/cargo#12723) - docs(ref): Establish publish best practices (rust-lang/cargo#12745) r? ghost
Inspired by #841 and conversations at RustConf.
At RustConf, someone was talking to me about the lack or inconsistent use of best practices within the crate ecosystem.
We have a challenge of needing to help users get up and going who can't research every last decision while not over-encouraging the status quo, leading to stagnation.
The list of tools included was based on a mixture of
I do have a bias in this conversation as the maintainer of one of these tools which is why I decided to pick an ordering without judgement. I picked alphabetical ordering before sorting and realizing this puts my own crate first.