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

Update module deps examples #675

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Conversation

nikohofmann
Copy link

Update from buf.build to <BSR_HOSTNAME> for clarity

Update from buf.build to <BSR_HOSTNAME> for clarity
@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented Aug 21, 2024

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

Copy link

The latest Buf updates on your PR. Results from workflow Buf CI / buf (pull_request).

BuildFormatLintBreakingUpdated (UTC)
✅ passed✅ passed✅ passed✅ passedAug 21, 2024, 3:51 PM

@unmultimedio
Copy link
Member

Thanks @nikohofmann for the PR, I guess this is because of single-tenant and on-prem ux to have docs pointing to their own BSR instances domains instead of buf.build?

If we merge this, it will cause the next sync for all the modules to have a different hash, most likely causing a new BSR commit. We could also take the route of replacing all instances of buf.build in the buf.md/README.md files, before pushing, so the squashing logic in Upload takes care of either creating the new commit or not, but that might replace undesired instances like blog or pricing links (which I assume are only published in the buf.build domain).

I think it might be ok to merge this, but first support in the BSR syncer to replace {BSR_REGISTRY} placeholder into their own local host name, @pkwarren you have thoughts here?

@nikohofmann
Copy link
Author

nikohofmann commented Aug 21, 2024

Yeah exactly. It still won't exactly point to their instances for single-tenant and on-prem since it's not dynamic, but having <BSR_HOSTNAME> in place of buf.build should at least help indicate to them that they'll want to use the version hosted in their instance rather than the public one.

I'm definitely not up to speed on how the syncer or anything else works with regard to this, so tried to go after the lowest hanging fruit but open to your thoughts on the best way to approach. There are definitely some links (docs, slack, etc) that are only on buf.build so a blanket replace might be undesirable.

@unmultimedio
Copy link
Member

Closed in favor of a BSR frontend replacement. 🙌🏼

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.

3 participants