Restructure this repository

[DNin01]

I think having a whole Action to copy the latest version of the schema to a branch isn't necessary. Here's what I think is a better plan:

For versioning, use tags instead of separate files.

It's easier for everyone to manage and lets us:

• Use only one file
• Ditch the update-dist Action and dist branch entirely

Tag contents can be referenced just like branch contents, in case anyone would want to use a specific version of the schema: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ScratchAddons/ScratchAddons/refs/tags/v1.23.0/README.md

Also...

If it's the convention, please make tabs less than 8 spaces. I'd say 4 spaces is good.

How does that sound, @Hans5958 @WorldLanguages? I can help, too.

[Hans5958]

To be fair this format is based on someone doing a JSON schema. They formatted it like this, but yeah, it could be improved looking at our use case.

We could also do something like v1 and v1.20 for the tags like how I see it on GitHub Actions, though we may not need the former, but who knows?

However, I'd like to see it as another repository. I think it would be better to do it from zero and rebuilding the history from it, but I don't want to remove every commit of this repository for the sake of starting over.

We still have to support the branch method, though, for backwards purposes. Depreacate it, remove 6 months later, that kind of stuff.

[DNin01]

However, I'd like to see it as another repository. I think it would be better to do it from zero and rebuilding the history from it, but I don't want to remove every commit of this repository and start over.

Sure, we can create another repo, how about ScratchAddons/addon-schema?

[DNin01]

Actually, this repository has a master branch, but GitHub's new default branch name is main, so maybe we can create a main branch and start from scratch? master could be preserved for backwards compatibility.

[Hans5958]

I'm not fond of "using branches for not-so-related content/history", so I rather not do that. Also, the default branch name is set per repository.

What's in my mind is to just do SA/manifest-schema and rename this to `SA/manifest-schema-legacy

[DNin01]

I'm not fond of "using branches for not-so-related content/history", so I rather not do that.

Not changing the branch is fine with me.

Also, the default branch name is set per repository.

I know.

What's in my mind is to just do SA/manifest-schema and rename this to `SA/manifest-schema-legacy

That would work, although links to the legacy schemas would break. But… who uses those anyway?

[DNin01]

Also, GitHub warns against that:

If you create a new repository under your account in the future, do not reuse the original name of the renamed repository. If you do, redirects to the renamed repository will no longer work.¹

Footnotes

1. https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/creating-and-managing-repositories/renaming-a-repository ↩

[Hans5958]

redirects to the renamed repository will no longer work

Again, I intend to do this so that https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ScratchAddons/manifest-schema/dist/schema.json will still work without any other changes on the new repository, while keeping old history intact on the this repository.

But, yeah, I'm not sure who uses https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ScratchAddons/manifest-schema/master/1/1.19.json etc. The only thing we should care about is the schema check on the Actions of the main repo.