Skip to content

create new and working release #1971

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 26, 2025
Merged

create new and working release #1971

merged 2 commits into from
Apr 26, 2025

Conversation

Byron
Copy link
Member

@Byron Byron commented Apr 26, 2025

Tasks

  • yank everything of previous release
  • create new release with bumped minor versions (cargo set-version --bump minor -p <crate> to the rescue)

@EliahKagan
Copy link
Member

EliahKagan commented Apr 26, 2025

  • yank everything of previous release

I am not at all sure, but I've included some information about my observations in #1970 (reply in thread) that makes me wonder if maybe not everything has to be yanked and redone.

That way breakage upon release can be avoided, for sure.
…lidate v0.10.0, gix-path v0.10.17, gix-features v0.42.1, gix-hash v0.18.0, gix-hashtable v0.8.1, gix-object v0.49.1, gix-glob v0.20.0, gix-quote v0.6.0, gix-attributes v0.26.0, gix-command v0.6.0, gix-packetline-blocking v0.19.0, gix-filter v0.19.1, gix-fs v0.15.0, gix-commitgraph v0.28.0, gix-revwalk v0.20.1, gix-traverse v0.46.1, gix-worktree-stream v0.21.1, gix-archive v0.21.1, gix-tempfile v17.1.0, gix-lock v17.1.0, gix-index v0.40.0, gix-config-value v0.15.0, gix-pathspec v0.11.0, gix-ignore v0.15.0, gix-worktree v0.41.0, gix-diff v0.52.1, gix-blame v0.2.1, gix-ref v0.52.1, gix-sec v0.11.0, gix-config v0.45.1, gix-prompt v0.11.0, gix-url v0.31.0, gix-credentials v0.29.0, gix-discover v0.40.1, gix-dir v0.14.1, gix-mailmap v0.27.1, gix-revision v0.34.1, gix-merge v0.5.1, gix-negotiate v0.20.1, gix-pack v0.59.1, gix-odb v0.69.1, gix-refspec v0.30.1, gix-shallow v0.4.0, gix-packetline v0.19.0, gix-transport v0.47.0, gix-protocol v0.50.1, gix-status v0.19.1, gix-submodule v0.19.1, gix-worktree-state v0.19.0, gix v0.72.1, gix-fsck v0.11.1, gitoxide-core v0.47.1, gitoxide v0.44.0
@Byron
Copy link
Member Author

Byron commented Apr 26, 2025

I am not at all sure, but I've included some information about my observations in #1970 (reply in thread) (near the end) that makes me wonder if maybe not everything has to be yanked and redone.

Even though a more fine-grained approach might have been possible in theory, I went for the blanket manual yanking as it was supposed to definitely work. This was facilitated by still having the publish logs in the terminal.

What's more worrisome is that this happened in the first place - it shouldn't have been possible unless, of course, I somehow managed to not indicate a breaking change in the originating crate again. gix-index ended up as patch release, but referred to a breaking release of gix-object, from what I could tell. This should have minor-bumped gix-index too.

For now I have no reason to assume this system isn't working at all, but it's clear there are ways to 'work around' it.

@Byron Byron marked this pull request as ready for review April 26, 2025 07:52
@Byron Byron enabled auto-merge April 26, 2025 07:53
@Byron Byron merged commit 8d4c4d1 into main Apr 26, 2025
24 checks passed
@EliahKagan
Copy link
Member

EliahKagan commented Apr 27, 2025

These releases, including for gitoxide v0.44.0, seem to have completed successfully, and you merged this PR. I noticed that the release workflow was not run for v0.44.0. Although the built v0.43.0 assets seem to run with no problems, that version is among the recently yanked packages, so people may prefer not to use it, or may not be confident that it preferable to older versions.

Furthermore, I am not aware of any special reason the release workflow should not be run, to build assets for gitoxide v0.44.0 and populate the GitHub release with it, and to post to the announcement discussion (#1693), thereby expressing that we really do want people to use this release. I believe such assets are also necessary for some automated installation methods, including cargo-binstall and various GitHub actions.

Thus, I have gone ahead and run the release workflow via the workflow_dispatch trigger on the v0.44.0 tag. This seemed to work fine. All jobs completed successfully, the expected assets are attached to the GitHub release, and the expected comment is posted in the announcement thread.

It occurs to me that there is no descriptive text about the release. However, that appears to have been intentional. (If not intentional, a description can always be added later.)

@Byron Byron deleted the new-release branch April 27, 2025 07:32
@Byron
Copy link
Member Author

Byron commented Apr 27, 2025

Thank you! Indeed I have just forgotten it (again).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants