You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The new dev-release workflow in #1217 works, but the release/build architecture is now split across:
.github/workflows/dev-release.yml
.github/workflows/build.yml
.github/workflows/build-tauri.yml
This is functional, but harder to reason about than the unified release.yml design we ended up with in gptme/gptme.
Why this follow-up exists
In #1217, Erik asked why we didn't use the cleaner unified release.yml structure from gptme/gptme.
The answer is basically scope control: #1217 started as the smallest safe change that could add CI-gated dev prereleases on top of ActivityWatch's current workflow layout. That was the right call for landing the feature quickly, but the architectural cleanup still makes sense.
Proposed direction
Refactor the current release/build setup into a single release.yml-style workflow that:
handles both stable and prerelease tagging paths coherently
owns release creation logic in one place
dispatches/reuses build steps instead of duplicating release semantics across multiple workflows
keeps artifact naming/version derivation consistent across AW Qt / Tauri outputs
makes the CI gate for dev releases easier to understand and audit
Summary
The new dev-release workflow in #1217 works, but the release/build architecture is now split across:
.github/workflows/dev-release.yml.github/workflows/build.yml.github/workflows/build-tauri.ymlThis is functional, but harder to reason about than the unified
release.ymldesign we ended up with ingptme/gptme.Why this follow-up exists
In #1217, Erik asked why we didn't use the cleaner unified
release.ymlstructure fromgptme/gptme.The answer is basically scope control: #1217 started as the smallest safe change that could add CI-gated dev prereleases on top of ActivityWatch's current workflow layout. That was the right call for landing the feature quickly, but the architectural cleanup still makes sense.
Proposed direction
Refactor the current release/build setup into a single
release.yml-style workflow that:Constraints
Context
gptme/gptme/.github/workflows/release.ymlOutcome
This would reduce workflow sprawl and make future release automation changes less brittle.