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

Automate syncing of the-turing-way/.github and the-turing-way/.github-private #9

Open
da5nsy opened this issue Dec 7, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@da5nsy
Copy link

da5nsy commented Dec 7, 2024

the-turing-way/the-turing-way#3282 (comment):

I assumed that if we just had one it would show up for both "members" and "public". It now seems that if we want it to show up for "members" at all, we also need to have a private one.

If so, I propose we have a duplicate repo. I'd prefer a way that didn't require duplicate versions that would have the potential to inadvertently diverge, but I don't currently see a way to do that.

...

Info source: https://docs.github.com/en/organizations/collaborating-with-groups-in-organizations/customizing-your-organizations-profile#adding-a-member-only-organization-profile-readme

@KirstieJane
Copy link

Hi @da5nsy - do you have any capacity to explain this further?? Or is there a discussion somewhere I can read to better understand?

@da5nsy
Copy link
Author

da5nsy commented Dec 7, 2024

Hi @KirstieJane! I think the discussion on the-turing-way/the-turing-way#3282 gives the best background.
The summary is that we currently have two separate readmes with no functional difference, and it would be good if we didn't have to manually sync them. I expect there'll be a way to can make that happen but I don't have time right now to find one so I'm just making the issue for now.
It's also possible that GitHub might have tweaked it's implementation since that discussion to allow a way to just have one readme (since I expect that would be a frequent suggestion/request), but again I don't have time right now to look into that.

@KirstieJane
Copy link

Thanks @da5nsy - I remember that from a year ago! Thank you for the link to the discussion.

What a truly ridiculous set up that GitHub has created!

Happy for this to stay open until someone (including maybe GitHub themselves - I just did a google and it doesn't seem like they've changed the behaviour yet) has time to fix.

One idea is to add a test to check to see if the two files are different and then the person making the change can copy over their edits to the other file. Still manual but at least checked at the time of the divergence?

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

2 participants