GH release naming convention - Remove version from asset name

[polarathene]

As you're approaching a new breaking change release with the 2.0 release, now is a good time to consider improving how the assets are named? (more details)

Presently if I download the asset it's like this:

$ wget -q https://github.com/01mf02/jaq/releases/download/v2.0.0-alpha.1/jaq-v2.0.0-alpha.1-x86_64-unknown-linux-musl

$ ls -l jaq*
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1412456 Sep  2 14:21 jaq-v2.0.0-alpha.1-x86_64-unknown-linux-musl

• I usually see tar.gz archives (or .zip for windows) which allows preserving file attributes like the executable bit +x (not always ideal though, as the linked issue points out).
• I can understand wanting to avoid a compressed archive (which should ideally vary by platform, see goreleaser config example as a way to support that), running chmod +x afterwards resolves the executable concern anyway 👍

---

I think a better convention is to keep the tag in the URL and leave it out of the asset name? That would allow:

# `-o` to rename to something nicer, and places at a location in `PATH` ENV
curl -fsSL -o /usr/local/bin/jaq "https://github.com/01mf02/jaq/releases/latest/download/jaq-$(uname -m)-unknown-linux-musl"
chmod +x /usr/local/bin/jaq

One benefit from an archive would be that the full target is separate from the binary name, so in addition to preserving +x I could just use:

# `-C /usr/local/bin` only needed to place the `jaq` binary there
# NOTE: The ownership from CI will be preserved as `1001:127`,
# so technically `--no-same-owner` is required for tar too (doesn't seem to be a common issue though)
curl -fsSL "https://github.com/01mf02/jaq/releases/latest/download/jaq-$(uname -m)-unknown-linux-musl.tar.gz" \
  | tar -xz -C /usr/local/bin

But if that adds some friction to users that aren't using CLI and would prefer the asset without the archive layer, no worries.

I just wanted to point out the benefit of omitting the version from the asset name 😎 (which could add a new example to the README for linux)

[01mf02]

I like the idea of omitting the version number, so future releases should have the shape that you proposed (see babc05c).
I also like the idea of adding a new example to the README, I hope that I'll remember to put it up once 2.0 is out.

However, I'll stick without archives for now, because it's easier for users, I think.