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

Support for the 'latest' version of all supported OSes #69

Open
kobalicek opened this issue Oct 28, 2023 · 3 comments
Open

Support for the 'latest' version of all supported OSes #69

kobalicek opened this issue Oct 28, 2023 · 3 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@kobalicek
Copy link

I'm not sure this is easy or not, but I would welcome to just say "latest" when it comes to OS version.

The motivation is that I want to test BSDs, for example, but I'm just okay if my code builds & works on the latest version. This would save me from changing versions in workflow files, which means I would not have to track the support for new versions added to cross-platform-actions.

@jacob-carlborg
Copy link
Contributor

The way it works right now is because I want to minimize the risk of an update of the action or an image would break existing usages of the action. If a new OS version of an image would require different flags when starting the hypervisor then that would break if the action is not updated as well.

Hmm, possibly if the image itself shipped with a list of flags for the hypervisor. Then there would need to be two sets of flags, one set for QEMU and one for Xhyve. There would also need to be someway to indicate which version is the latest, I guess that could just be a text file next to the images.

@jacob-carlborg jacob-carlborg added the enhancement New feature or request label Oct 28, 2023
@kobalicek
Copy link
Author

Yeah that would be amazing if the action can just pick it up.

BTW if it's something that you don't plan to work on I would just close the issue as WONTFIX, I just had this idea and it would help me maintaining my workflows.

@jacob-carlborg
Copy link
Contributor

I don't have anything against the feature per se. I think it's a reasonable enhancement request. But I don't plan to work on it now. I think there are more pressing things to work on, like the issue you have reported 😃.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants