- for now all versions start with v6.0
- CICD builds use the monolithic build number as patch level, e.g. v6.0.12345
- local builds use the following algorithm
- find the newest commit with a CICD build number that is included in the
working tree
- count the number of commits in the working tree since that commit
- if there are no commits since the last CICD build, the local build version
will be v6.0.12345-local
- if there are N commits since the last CICD build, it will be
v6.0.12345-N-local
- test builds in the CICD that don't create artifacts simply use a dummy release
in order to not incorrectly increment the build number and also not to waste
time and resources by manually checking out the nightly-build repo for each of
these builds.
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
They are now the four digit version dash build nr
So major.minor.patch.commitsSinceTag-buildNr
This makes it easier to correlate the release name and a specific manually
built version.
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
Change the name of the `GITHUB_WORKSPACE` environment variable in the
android build script to `OUTPUT_DIR`, which is more intuitive when the
script is used for local builds.
Also test if the variable is defined before attempting to use it as the
target of the build output.
Signed-off-by: Michael Keller <github@ike.ch>
Prevent attempts to generate a build number for pull request builds as
they will fail due to the lack of permissions on the
`subsurface/nightly-builds` repository.
Signed-off-by: Michael Keller <github@ike.ch>
The necessary keys to do so aren't available (and of course we don't try
to post a release on pull requests, anyway).
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
What a pain. It turns out that github.run_number is counting the number of
times a specific workflow has been run - but that's different for different
workflows, so using that won't get us a single tag with all the corresponding
build artifacts. And sadly I can't find a simple atomic way to increase a
GitHUb repo variable, so I came up with this somewhat convoluted dance, using
the the fact that a push to an existing brach that isn't a fast-forward will
fail.
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
Fix the 'Snap USNs' action.
According to https://bugs.launchpad.net/lazr.restfulclient/+bug/2041407
the an incompatibility is introduced by the move from python 3.11 to
3.12, and a workaround is to pin the version to 3.11.
Signed-off-by: Michael Keller <github@ike.ch>
This way our ongoing releases will be in their own repo.
Also, use a nicer date format (at least I think this looks nicer).
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
We need some additional options when building the package, so let that script
handle the details and use the generic build script mainly for the dependencies.
Also let's not mix building for testing and building the DMG - just so I can
stay somewhat sane.
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
Pull requests can be triggered by anyone - we should not publish code
that comes in through pull requests to either GitHub releases or
Launchpad, Copr, etc.
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
Fix deprecation warnings for actions using a deprecated version of node.
Also switch to a fixed version of the environment in order to avoid
future deprecation warnings.
Signed-off-by: Michael Keller <github@ike.ch>
Even on platforms that don't have the new git version, yet.
And using the convoluted way to create an environment variable that should
point to our checked out tree in the GitHub Action. The more obvious ways
have resulted in failed builds for obscure reasons.
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
As some Linux distros start to ship both Qt5 and Qt6, it actually makes more
sense to build only against Qt6 when the user explicitly asks for it. Having it
preferred over Qt5 seems completely wrong in hind sight.
Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <dirk@hohndel.org>
