ci: setup initial release process

[beeme1mr]

This PR

• adds pr linting GH action
• adds release please GH action

Notes

This won't actually publish the Gem but includes all the plumbing.

Follow-up Tasks

• Extend the release step to publish the Gem
• Change namespace to Flagd instead of FlagD #7

How to test

We'll do it live!

[alxckn]

Not familiar with release-please, what is the intended workflow? For release please to maintain a PR as described on its repo that once merged will proceed with the release?

Will it require that each provider gets released at the same time?

[maxveldink]

@beeme1mr I'm glad this is a forcing function to address the naming inconsistencies we have. Here's some thoughts:

• Conventionally in Ruby, you'll see snake_case files map to PascalCase constants. So, if we want the OpenFeature to be our top-level module, you'd expect every path to be open_feature. We've been talking about this in this issue on the SDK. My preference is we do that here.
• This runs into an issue with the SDK artifact we're currently releasing. openfeature-sdk would result in an expected constant of Openfeature::Sdk. Most folks will conventionally know that Sdk should be inflected to SDK, so that's fine, but the top-level module is still named unexpectedly. I have thought that it might make sense to rename the primary package to open_feature before we release 1.0 (also dropping SDK because I don't think it adds value for us), but I didn't know how much will there would be for that.
• Bringing that all into these gems, I think my desired naming would be open_feature-meta_provider and open_feature-flag_d (of open_feature-flag_d_provider if we're only shipping a provider). That matches gem naming conventions where the - indicates that something is modifying/plugging into another gem and has the expected casing.
• I am but one voice in this, and happy to have the discussion. There's plenty of non-conventional gem names/module pathing and it's fine as long as you explain usages in your README.

[maxveldink]

@beeme1mr I made some modifications to the naming for the meta_provider (and I'll have some follow-on changes in the ruby-sdk). I like the place we ended up 👍🏻

[beeme1mr]

@beeme1mr I made some modifications to the naming for the meta_provider (and I'll have some follow-on changes in the ruby-sdk). I like the place we ended up 👍🏻

Awesome, looks good to me! Are we good to merge? If this works, it should create release PRs, and merging those PRs should do everything except publish the Gem. If that goes smoothly, I think it should be pretty straightforward to finish up the publishing step.

[maxveldink]

Yep! I'll try and merge this in first thing tomorrow.