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

Feature: Codify package config guidelines #69

Closed
VersusFacit opened this issue Sep 13, 2021 · 1 comment · Fixed by #139
Closed

Feature: Codify package config guidelines #69

VersusFacit opened this issue Sep 13, 2021 · 1 comment · Fixed by #139

Comments

@VersusFacit
Copy link
Contributor

Hey team, we have been discussing there being rules for how a plugin project should look for it to be added to the hub. Here's what I've got so far:

  • has a dbt_project.yml with a name
  • if packages.yml exists, it lives at the root dir of the package
  • the package repo should not be private
  • prefer main to master for parsing out commits (perhaps have a way for packages to specify the branch of their choice)

Note: I had originally framed this to myself as requiring a main branch, but on second thought, I think it's better to prioritize main to master in the script logic or perhaps even just having some kind of config file in the user package repo's as a possible override if they want to specify the exact branch for us to use when considering new versions. main is already prioritized by GitHub and we can document that master has been deprecated but is still supported (since any branch can be used). That way, we don't frustrate package maintainers that haven't yet made the switch (plenty of shops are still slowly but surely transitioning over).

What other things should be added to docs about what a basic package should look like?

@VersusFacit VersusFacit changed the title Codify package config guidelines Feature: Codify package config guidelines Sep 13, 2021
@dbeatty10 dbeatty10 linked a pull request Oct 31, 2022 that will close this issue
@dbeatty10
Copy link
Contributor

Fixed by #139

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 a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants