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

[Bug]: Jekyll release v3.9.5 is missing from GitHub, only exists in ruby gems #9565

Open
michaelnordmeyer opened this issue Mar 17, 2024 · 7 comments
Assignees

Comments

@michaelnordmeyer
Copy link
Contributor

michaelnordmeyer commented Mar 17, 2024

Operating System

Any

Ruby Version

Any

Jekyll Version

jekyll 3.9.5

GitHub Pages Version

No response

Expected Behavior

I expect the GitHub releases to be in sync with the RubyGems one.

Current Behavior

Jekyll v3.9.5 is not released on GitHub.

Relevant log output

No response

Code Sample

No response

@michaelnordmeyer
Copy link
Contributor Author

Any update?

@olleolleolle
Copy link

To be specific, the Issue seems to be only about "A GitHub Release post".

The https://github.com/jekyll/jekyll/tree/v3.9.5 tag does exist in the repository.

@mattr- mattr- self-assigned this May 23, 2024
@mattr-
Copy link
Member

mattr- commented May 23, 2024

I'll do this at some point but it's very low priority on the list of things to do. The only thing 3.9.5 adds is the ability for pages to be excerpted and I'm not even sure how that release got made, since it looks like parts of the release automation failed.

@michaelnordmeyer
Copy link
Contributor Author

I meant that there's no artifact linked on the GitHub release page, which from my understanding means it wasn't released on GitHub, but only on rubygems.org.

@mattr-
Copy link
Member

mattr- commented May 23, 2024

The release artifact on GitHub will simply be a zip file of the source code. Is there some importance to that I'm missing?

@michaelnordmeyer
Copy link
Contributor Author

You mean the confusion if someone wonders why there's a newer version available than on the canonical website (= here)?

@michaelnordmeyer
Copy link
Contributor Author

Project's or maintainer's accounts has been compromised before, but mostly only one and not all. I think it helps a lot if all the relevant site have the same version.

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