b4n left a comment (geany/geany#4223) Remembering I don't know anything about the subject, but:
> This is now complete although this only produces the installer for Geany. > Similar PR on the plugins produces both > [geany/geany-plugins#1408](https://github.com/geany/geany-plugins/pull/1408) > so I'm tempted to use that in order to generate the signed installers. > Another option would be to build here also the plugins instead. Preferences? Ideally each installer would be independent -- especially as we usually release Geany first, and only a little bit after plugins. If it's not doable (for now?), I guess doing it in GP is better because when we release Geany we don't necessarily have a ready GP. > Another topic is the migration to UCRT64 as that is advised from msys2 but my > concern is that the release is very close and we are running out of time, so > I'm leaning towards doing that just after the 2.1 release. I guess that's wise indeed, just play it safe here. > Mainly, as I need to write to SignPath, I need to indicate the workflow that > we intend to use to do the signing and that has to be on the official repo, > not my fork, so I will hold fire until my PRs are merged. Yeah so we need to get this sorted out if we want a chance to have something in less than 3 weeks… -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/4223#issuecomment-2978083903 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <geany/geany/pull/4223/c2978083...@github.com>
