Skip to content

[llvm][release] Add links to automatically built packages on release page #147021

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

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

DavidSpickett
Copy link
Collaborator

This adds links to the release packages that are automatically built using GitHub, so that users of those platforms can find them more easily.

The approach taken:

  • "LLVM x.y.z Release" becomes the title for this links section.
  • No hand built files are linked to because we can't be sure when or if they will appear. It's better that users check the full file list if they need those.
  • This means no Windows links, but I've specifically mentioned Windows just below the links to mitigate this.
  • I have tried to use the vendor names for the architectures, that casual users would recognise.
  • Their signature file is linked as well. I expect most will ignore this but better to show it to remind people it exists.
  • I called it "signature" as a generic term to cover the .jsonl and .sig files, but we're not linking to any .sig files yet.

I considered generating this using a lot of templates, but considering the small number of links and how useful it is to see the layout in the Python file, I prefer writing it out.

We could link to all files that usually, eventually get built, but I'm not sure how misleading that will be for users. So I'm proposing this conservative version for now.

…page

This adds links to the release packages that are automatically built
using GitHub, so that users of those platforms can find them more
easily.

The approach taken:
* "LLVM x.y.z Release" becomes the title for this links section.
* No hand built files are linked to because we can't be sure
  when or if they will appear. It's better that users check the
  full file list if they need those.
* This means no Windows links, but I've specifically mentioned
  Windows just below the links to mitigate this.
* I have tried to use the vendor names for the architectures,
  that casual users would recognise.
* Their signature file is linked as well. I expect most will ignore
  this but better to show it to remind people it exists.
* I called it "signature" as a generic term to cover the .jsonl
  and .sig files, but we're not linking to any .sig files yet.

I considered generating this using a lot of templates, but
considering the small number of links and how useful it is to
see the layout in the Python file, I prefer writing it out.

We could link to all files that *usually*, *eventually* get built,
but I'm not sure how misleading that will be for users. So I'm
proposing this conservative version for now.
@DavidSpickett DavidSpickett requested review from tstellar and tru July 4, 2025 09:08
@DavidSpickett
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I went through some of the most popular projects on GitHub and most of them sidestep this by having very few packages, or their GitHub release is just a source archive and you get binaries elsewhere.

I did find https://github.com/rustdesk/rustdesk/releases/tag/1.4.0# which does a similar thing using a table, but I found a list easier to navigate, and a table would have large gaps if we listed all of our major packages.

"I am a user who has a <mac/linux> machine powered by and I want to download llvm" is the use case here.

@DavidSpickett
Copy link
Collaborator Author

#147719 is a version of this that has the links commented out and the release tasks workflow revealing them after the builds finish.

I expected that to be a lot more complicated but it's not much more, so I personally lean towards that version.

@DavidSpickett
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Went with #147719 instead.

@DavidSpickett DavidSpickett deleted the llvm-releaselinks branch July 29, 2025 11:36
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants