Fix release workflow

[tadeas-hejnic]

Changelog Description

Use the new c++ release workflow.

Additional review information

The original one expects to have create_package.py, etc.

Testing notes:

N/A

[BigRoy]

I'll approve it, but can't confirm whether this is indeed the correct fix? 🤔 Maybe @antirotor

[Copilot]

🟡 Changes recommended

The reusable workflow is pinned to a moving @develop ref, which is a security and reproducibility risk for releases and should be pinned to an immutable ref (tag/SHA) or an agreed stable branch.

Once you've addressed the issues Copilot identified, you can request another Copilot review.

Pull request overview

Switches this repository’s manual release trigger to call the newer C++-specific reusable release workflow from ynput/ops-repo-automation, aligning the release process with the updated automation expectations (no create_package.py, etc.).

Changes:

• Update the reusable workflow reference to release_trigger_cpp.yml for C++ releases.

File summaries

File	Description
.github/workflows/release_trigger.yml	Points the release trigger job at the new C++ reusable release workflow.

Review details

• Files reviewed: 1/1 changed files
• Comments generated: 1
• Review effort level: Lite

---

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

[tadeas-hejnic]

I don't really know how to test it without merging it... Probably the release of the ops repo should be made first, but I would rather test it before it...

[BigRoy]

I don't really know how to test it without merging it... Probably the release of the ops repo should be made first, but I would rather test it before it...

Hmm - I'm no GH workflows expert unfortunately - there must be a way to test it, but I don't know more without just searching around.

[tadeas-hejnic]

Hmm - I'm no GH workflows expert unfortunately - there must be a way to test it, but I don't know more without just searching around.

Got some guide how to test it and it created the draft release correctly. I think we can merge it, or release the ops-repo-automation first, set the link to main instead of develop and then merge.

+ do the same in other repos

[antirotor]

The change make sense and and yes, this should be changed to main and merged only after ynput/ops-repo-automation is released. BTW there is nothing holding us back on that, right?

[BigRoy]

BTW there is nothing holding us back on that, right?

Not that I know of - feel free to push them through.