yonlu/yellowjacket
1
1
Fork 0
Code Issues 55 Pull Requests 6 Actions Packages Projects Releases 12 Wiki Activity

docs: describe the release pipeline where the claims used to be wrong

Browse Source 
CLAUDE.md said .releaserc.yml was a config nothing ran and that there
were five workflows; both stop being true with this branch. The CI
section now names release.yml as the entry point and records the four
things in it that are load-bearing, including the two silent failure
modes worth pinning against.

packaging/homebrew/README.md and docs/android-release.md say where a
user would actually look that upgrading from 1.x needs a reinstall --
Homebrew offers nothing silently, and Android refuses outright.
This commit is contained in:
logan
2026-08-17 18:43:17 -04:00
parent 2c576fa1e8
commit b3a0814f24
6 changed files with 502 additions and 20 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
.gitea/workflows/release.yml
+13 -4
View File
@@ -124,6 +124,15 @@ jobs:
# tool that looks for one. conventional-changelog-conventionalcommits
# is in the list because both the analyzer and the notes generator
# name that preset and neither depends on it.
#
# **That preset is held at 9 and the reason is worth keeping.** At
# 10 it is silently incompatible with the writer that
# release-notes-generator@14 pulls in (^8): every release note comes
# out as a bare `## 0.0.1 (date)` heading with **no sections and no
# commits under it**, and nothing errors. The version would have
# been right, the tag would have been right, every job would have
# been green, and the release body would have been empty. Check the
# notes, not the exit code, before moving any of these.
- name: Run semantic-release
if: steps.guard.outputs.skip == 'false'
working-directory: /src
@@ -134,10 +143,10 @@ jobs:
npx --yes \
-p semantic-release@25 \
-p @semantic-release/commit-analyzer@14 \
-p @semantic-release/release-notes-generator@15 \
-p @semantic-release/changelog@6 \
-p @semantic-release/git@10 \
-p @semantic-release/commit-analyzer@13 \
-p @semantic-release/release-notes-generator@14 \
-p @semantic-release/changelog@7 \
-p @semantic-release/git@11 \
-p @semantic-release/exec@7 \
-p conventional-changelog-conventionalcommits@9 \
semantic-release \
.planning/plans/active/017-release-automation.md
+358
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,358 @@
# 017 — Releases that happen by themselves
> **Status: built, not yet run.** Phases 0–4 have landed on this branch;
> phase 5 is the merge itself and cannot be done until then. The old
> `v1.x` tags are already deleted from `origin`. Verified locally against
> a scratch remote: semantic-release computes **0.0.1** from these
> commits and renders correct sectioned notes.
>
> **One thing found by testing that no amount of reading would have
> caught.** `conventional-changelog-conventionalcommits@10` — the current
> release, and my first pin — is silently incompatible with the writer
> `release-notes-generator@14` depends on: the version is right, the tag
> is right, every step reports success, and the release body is a bare
> `## 0.0.1 (date)` heading with **nothing under it**. It is pinned to 9
> in both `release.yml` and `make release-dry`, with the reason written
> beside it. Four of my seven original pins were wrong majors besides;
> they were guesses, and `npm view` was the fix.
The goal in one sentence: **a merge to `main` computes the next version
from the commits it contains, cuts a tag and a Gitea release whose body
is the changelog, and every publishing channel builds that tag.** The
first release under this scheme is `v0.0.1`, and the five existing `v1.x`
tags go.
## What is there now
Measured, not remembered:
- **Five tags and zero releases.** `v1.3.0`, `v1.4.0`, `v1.4.1`,
`v1.5.0`, `v1.6.0` exist on `origin`;
`GET /api/v1/repos/yonlu/yellowjacket/releases` returns `[]`. So there
is no release page to preserve and nothing but the tags to remove.
- **`CHANGELOG.md` is stale and belongs to another repo.** Its newest
entry is `1.3.0` and every link in it points at
`github.com/onion-4-dinner/yellowjacket` — it was written by a
semantic-release run against a GitHub remote this project no longer
has.
- **`.releaserc.yml` is a complete semantic-release config that nothing
invokes**, which CLAUDE.md already says in as many words.
- **Root `package.json` is literally `{}`** — the stub left behind by
whatever was going to run it.
- The triggers today are: `arch-package` on **push to `main`**,
`homebrew-formula` on **`v*`**, `android-apk` on **`v*`**, `ci` on
every branch, `index-artifact` on cron/dispatch. So Arch publishes a
`git describe` version on every merge and the other two publish only
when a human remembers to push a tag.
## Decision 1 — semantic-release, with `exec` in place of the `github` plugin
**Revised: the first draft of this plan proposed a shell script and the
argument for it does not hold.** Recorded here rather than deleted,
because the reasoning is what the decision rests on.
What I said, and what checking it showed:
- *"The two plugins that would carry the work do not fit."* Half true.
`@semantic-release/github` genuinely does not speak Gitea's `/api/v1`
— but the replacement is **`@semantic-release/exec`**, which is
first-party, published 2026-06, and peer-deps `semantic-release >=24.1`.
Its `publishCmd` is one `curl` at the Gitea release endpoint with
`${nextRelease.notes}` as the body. The Gitea-shaped part of this is
five lines, and the part I proposed to hand-roll — parsing conventional
commits, ordering semver, rendering grouped notes — is the part with
the edge cases and none of it is Gitea-shaped at all.
- *"`@semantic-release/git` commits the changelog back to `main`, which
re-triggers everything."* True, and it is the one real risk — but it
is a two-line guard (skip the job when `HEAD`'s subject is
`chore(release):`), not a reason to write a version calculator. That
guard is needed under **either** design, since either one writes a
changelog commit.
- *"A Node dependency tree at the root of a Go repo."* The commitlint
precedent does not transfer. commitlint was a dependency to regex one
line; this is a dependency to do something with real complexity, it is
`npx`-only so nothing lands in the repo, and Node is already installed
in CI for the frontend.
- *"It cannot be told to produce `0.0.1`."* Wrong — that is a property
of which commits are in the range, not of the tool. Identical under
both designs. See below.
Note also that **`@saithodev/semantic-release-gitea` is a dead end** and
should not be reached for: last published 2022, depends on `got@10` and
`fs-extra@8`, and declares no peer dependency on semantic-release at all
— i.e. it is untested against anything since v19, against a core now at
v25. `exec` + `curl` is both simpler and maintained.
So `.releaserc.yml` stays, and its plugin list becomes five **first-party**
plugins, all published within the last six months:
| plugin | job |
| --- | --- |
| `commit-analyzer` | the version |
| `release-notes-generator` | the notes |
| `changelog` | writes `CHANGELOG.md` |
| `git` | commits it back |
| `exec` | `curl`s the Gitea release |
The `releaseRules` and `presetConfig` blocks already in the file are
kept verbatim — they are the same bump table `commit-check.sh` already
enforces the grammar for, and nothing about the project's commit
convention changes.
Two mechanical details that decide whether this works at all:
- **semantic-release pushes the tag itself**, as core behaviour, using
`repositoryUrl`. The remote here is `ssh://git@git.ljones.me:2222/…`,
which would need an SSH key in CI — so the run passes
`--repository-url "https://x-access-token:$PACKAGE_TOKEN@git.ljones.me/yonlu/yellowjacket.git"`
on the command line rather than committing a token to the config.
**That is also what satisfies Decision 2**: the tag push is attributed
to a real user, not to the Actions token.
- **The empty root `package.json` (`{}`) goes.** semantic-release does
not need one when `--repository-url` is explicit, and leaving a
package manifest at the root of a Go repo invites the npm plugin and
every tool that looks for one.
Invocation is pinned in the workflow, not installed into the repo:
```
npx --yes \
-p semantic-release@25 \
-p @semantic-release/commit-analyzer@14 \
-p @semantic-release/release-notes-generator@15 \
-p @semantic-release/changelog@6 \
-p @semantic-release/git@10 \
-p @semantic-release/exec@7 \
-p conventional-changelog-conventionalcommits@9 \
semantic-release --repository-url "…"
```
(Exact majors get pinned from `npm view` at implementation time;
`conventional-changelog-conventionalcommits` is in the list because both
the analyzer and the notes generator name that preset and neither
depends on it.)
## Decision 2 — how the publish workflows learn about the tag
**Gitea, like GitHub, does not start a workflow from a tag pushed by a
workflow's own token** (go-gitea#33123, and the forum thread it points
at). This is the one load-bearing unknown in the plan.
The remedy is to push the tag with a *user* PAT — `secrets.PACKAGE_TOKEN`
is already in this repo and already used by `arch-package` and
`android-apk` to clone and to publish — so the push is attributed to a
person and the `v*` triggers fire normally. That keeps the three publish
workflows completely unchanged in shape.
**It is verified in phase 5, not assumed.** The fallback, if it does not
fire, is an explicit `POST
/api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/actions/workflows/{file}/dispatches` per
channel from the release job. That needs `workflow_dispatch` (with a
`version` input) added to `homebrew-formula.yml` and `arch-package.yml`;
`android-apk.yml` already has both. **Add those inputs in phase 3
regardless** — a hand-triggered rebuild of one channel is worth having
whether or not the fallback is needed.
The alternative — one `release.yml` with the three publishes as
`needs:` jobs — is rejected: it means either copying ~400 lines of
Android and Arch setup into it or relying on `workflow_call`, and it
puts every merge to `main` behind an up-to-60-minute Android build on a
runner with capacity 1.
## Decision 3 — 1.6.0 → 0.0.1 is a downgrade, and the answer is reinstall
**Decided: no version-code offset, no epoch. The version number stays
honest and existing installs are replaced by hand.** Every channel is a
downgrade and each declines differently, so what to expect:
- **Arch: no upgrade is offered, silently.** `pkgver()` derives from
`git describe`, so after the wipe it reads `0.0.1.rN.gHASH`, which
pacman orders *below* the `1.3.0.rN.*` in the registry. `pacman -R
yellowjacket && pacman -S yellowjacket` is the remedy. (`epoch=1` in
the PKGBUILD would have avoided it for one line — but an epoch can
never be removed, and it puts a permanent `1:` in front of every
version string this project will ever have.)
- **Homebrew: no upgrade is offered, silently.** Brew has no epoch at
all. `brew uninstall yellowjacket && brew install …`.
- **Android: a hard refusal.** `versionCode` is
`maj*10000 + min*100 + pat`, so `0.0.1` is **1** against the **10300**
an installed 1.3.0 carries, and the install fails with
`INSTALL_FAILED_VERSION_DOWNGRADE`. Uninstall first — **and that takes
the app's library and config with it**, which is the same data loss
`android-apk.yml`'s keystore guard exists to prevent, arrived at from
the other direction. The workflow's own `code -le 0` guard still passes
at 1, so nothing in CI stops or warns about this.
All three go in the release notes for `v0.0.1` and in
`packaging/homebrew/README.md` / `docs/android-release.md`, because a
channel that silently offers no upgrade is indistinguishable from a
broken pipeline six months from now.
## Landing exactly `v0.0.1`
Determinism comes from two things:
1. **Seed `v0.0.0` on `6fb7b5e`** (current `origin/main`) after wiping
the old tags. That is the floor, and the analyser's range starts
there.
2. **This branch carries no `feat:` commit.** Everything in it is
`ci:`/`docs:`/`chore:`/`build:`, plus at least one `fix:` — which is
honest, since wiring up release machinery that was configured and
never run *is* a fix. One patch-level commit in `v0.0.0..HEAD`
computes `0.0.1` and nothing else can.
This is a property of the commit range, not of the tool — it would have
been the same constraint under the shell script.
This is a real constraint on the branch, not an accounting trick: a
single `feat:` commit here makes the first release `v0.1.0`.
`v0.0.0` itself gets no release object — it is a floor, not a shipment.
## Decision 4 — what the release page carries
Four artifacts, and the fourth is the interesting one. Measured on this
machine rather than assumed:
| asset | built by | state |
| --- | --- | --- |
| `yellowjacket-<v>-android-arm64.apk` | `android-apk.yml` | already built, verified, signed |
| `yellowjacket-<v>-linux-amd64.tar.gz` | new job | binary + `.desktop` + icon |
| `yellowjacket-<v>-x86_64.pkg.tar.zst` | `arch-package.yml` | already built; free to attach |
| `yellowjacket-<v>-windows-amd64.zip` | new job | **compiles; has never been run** |
**macOS cannot be one of them.** `GOOS=darwin CGO_ENABLED=0` fails at
`wails/v3/pkg/mac: build constraints exclude all Go files` — the darwin
backend is Objective-C behind cgo, so a `.app` needs a macOS host and
the runner is a Linux container. That is precisely why the Homebrew
channel builds from source on the user's own Mac, and it stays the
answer for macOS.
**Windows is newly possible and should be labelled honestly.**
`GOOS=windows GOARCH=amd64 CGO_ENABLED=0 go build -tags production`
succeeds in 2.5 s and produces a 40 MB `.exe` — nothing in the audio,
database or webview path needs cgo on Windows (oto uses WinMM through
`x/sys`, sqlite is modernc's pure-Go driver, WebView2 is COM syscalls,
and MPRIS is `linux && !android`-tagged). But **compiling is not
running**: no Windows build of this app has ever been started, no CI tier
can exercise one, and `backend/system`'s `%LOCALAPPDATA%` path has never
resolved on a real machine. It ships marked as untested in the release
notes, or it does not ship — an unlabelled Windows download is a promise
nothing here can keep.
### The race the ordering creates
semantic-release runs **prepare** (changelog commit, tag push) before
**publish** (the `exec` curl that creates the release object). The tag
push is what starts the publishing workflows — so a fast one can reach
its upload step *before the release exists*, and
`POST /releases/{id}/assets` needs an id.
The capacity-1 runner serialises things enough that this would usually
work, which is the worst kind of bug. So each upload step **polls
`GET /api/v1/repos/…/releases/tags/{tag}` with a bounded retry** before
uploading, and fails loudly on timeout rather than skipping the asset.
That is ~8 lines of shell, shared by all three publishers.
## Phases
**Phase 0 — clear the ground.**
Delete `v1.3.0`–`v1.6.0` locally and on `origin`; push `v0.0.0` at
`6fb7b5e` — this is the floor semantic-release reads, and without it the
first release is `1.0.0` by its own rule. Delete the empty root
`package.json`. Truncate `CHANGELOG.md` to a header plus a line saying
history before `0.0.1` is in `git log` — the existing content is another
repo's links and cannot be repaired, only replaced, and the `changelog`
plugin prepends to whatever it finds.
**Phase 1 — `.releaserc.yml`.**
Swap `@semantic-release/github` for `@semantic-release/exec`, whose
`publishCmd` POSTs to
`/api/v1/repos/yonlu/yellowjacket/releases` with `tag_name`, `name` and
`body` taken from `${nextRelease.*}`. Keep `commit-analyzer`,
`release-notes-generator`, `changelog` and `git` exactly as written; fix
the `git` plugin's commit message so it passes `commit-check`
(`chore(release): ${nextRelease.version}` — the existing one already
does, but the trailing `${nextRelease.notes}` in the body is worth
keeping deliberate rather than incidental). `make release-dry` wraps
`semantic-release --dry-run` so the next version is answerable without
pushing anything.
`scripts/commit-check.sh`'s header already points at `.releaserc.yml`
for the type list and stays correct — that coupling survives this plan
rather than being broken by it.
**Phase 2 — `.gitea/workflows/release.yml`.**
On `push: branches: [main]`. Node 22, the pinned `npx` line from
Decision 1, `--repository-url` carrying `PACKAGE_TOKEN`. Concurrency
group `release-main` with `cancel-in-progress: false` — cutting a tag is
not a thing to cancel halfway.
The one guard that matters: **the job exits early when `HEAD`'s subject
starts `chore(release):`**, so the changelog commit the `git` plugin
pushes cannot re-enter this workflow. That is checked in shell rather
than left to `[skip ci]`, whose handling in Gitea is one more thing that
would have to be verified.
**Phase 3 — rewire the publish workflows.**
`arch-package.yml` moves from `push: branches: [main]` to
`push: tags: ['v*']` plus `workflow_dispatch`, so a merge no longer
publishes an untagged package. `homebrew-formula.yml` gains
`workflow_dispatch` with a `version` input and takes its version from
the input when there is no tag. `android-apk.yml` needs neither.
**Phase 3b — the assets.**
`scripts/release-asset.sh` is the shared uploader: wait for the release
by tag, then `POST /releases/{id}/assets?name=…`. `android-apk.yml` and
`arch-package.yml` each call it with the artifact they already built.
A new `desktop-assets` job — `push: tags: ['v*']`, in the same
`ubuntu:24.04` container `ci.yml` uses — builds the Linux binary via
`make build-prod` and the Windows one via the `CGO_ENABLED=0`
cross-compile, and uploads both. It is a separate job from the Arch one
because that runs in an `archlinux` container as an unprivileged
`makepkg` user, and grafting two unrelated builds onto it would make one
failure look like the other.
**Phase 4 — say that the upgrade is a reinstall, and that Windows is untried.**
No code change: a note in `packaging/homebrew/README.md`, one in
`docs/android-release.md`, the three-channel downgrade warning written
into the `v0.0.1` release notes, and a standing line in the notes
template marking the Windows asset unverified until someone runs it.
**Phase 5 — cut it and watch.** *(the only phase left)*
Merge, then verify with `gitea_ci` that (a) `release.yml` ran, seeded
`v0.0.0` and produced `v0.0.1`, (b) the release exists **with a non-empty
body** — check the body, not the exit code — and (c) **all four publish
workflows started from the tag**. If (c) is empty, that is Decision 2's
fallback and the `workflow_dispatch` inputs added in phase 3 are already
there to drive it.
The expected sequence on the merge is: `release.yml` seeds `v0.0.0`
(triggering nothing), releases `0.0.1`, and pushes both the changelog
commit and the tag — at which point `release.yml` fires a second time on
the changelog commit and exits at the `chore(release):` guard, while the
four `v*` workflows start. On a capacity-1 runner they will queue behind
each other, Android last and longest.
**Phase 6 — the documentation that will otherwise be wrong.**
CLAUDE.md's *Commits* section currently explains `.releaserc.yml` and
says nothing runs it; the CI section says there are five workflows and
that only `ci.yml` gates. Both change. `docs/android-release.md`
describes tags as hand-pushed. `make skill-check` fails on a `.pi/`
reference to a make target that does not exist, so `make release-dry`
gets documented or nothing does.
## Open questions for you
1. **Ship the Windows `.exe` or not?** It builds, and it has never run.
Marked-as-untested is the assumption; say if you would rather hold it
back until someone boots it.
Resolved: semantic-release stays, with `exec` in place of the `github`
plugin (Decision 1). Reinstalls are accepted, so no epoch and no
versionCode offset (Decision 3). The release carries the APK, a Linux
tarball, the Arch package and — pending (1) — a Windows zip; macOS is
not buildable here and stays a Homebrew-from-source channel (Decision 4).
`v0.0.0` has to be a real tag under this design — semantic-release reads
git tags for its floor and has no "treat absence as 0.0.0" knob that
also stops it calling the first release `1.0.0`.
CLAUDE.md
+81 -11
View File
@@ -2027,13 +2027,31 @@ Pre-commit hooks verify generated code is fresh — always run `make generate` a
two in step or semantic-release will decline to release something the
check accepted.
`.releaserc.yml` is a complete semantic-release config that **nothing
currently runs** — no workflow invokes it, and `CHANGELOG.md` is not
being written by it. That is deliberate for now (wiring it means pushing
tags, committing a changelog back, and interacting with the three
publish workflows); it is recorded here rather than implied, because
this file claimed for five phases that commitlint gated CI and that
semantic release ran, and neither was true.
`.releaserc.yml` **is** what runs now, from `release.yml`, and it is why
the commit grammar is load-bearing rather than decorative: a merge to
`main` whose commits are all `chore`/`ci`/`docs` releases nothing, and a
mistyped `feat` ships a minor version. `make release-dry` answers "what
would this merge release" without pushing.
**`@semantic-release/github` is not in that config and must not be.**
Gitea's API is `/api/v1` and is not GitHub's surface, so
`@semantic-release/exec` calls `scripts/gitea-release.sh` instead — one
`POST`, which is the whole of the Gitea-shaped work. The community
plugin (`@saithodev/semantic-release-gitea`) was considered and
rejected: last published 2022, on `got@10`, declaring no peer
dependency on semantic-release at all.
Two things in it fail *silently* and are therefore pinned with their
reasons. **The notes come from `CHANGELOG.md`, not from an argument**:
release notes are rendered commit messages — arbitrary text carrying
backticks, quotes and `$` — so templating `${nextRelease.notes}` into
`publishCmd` would be a shell injection whose input is the commit log.
And **`conventional-changelog-conventionalcommits` is held at 9**,
because at 10 it is quietly incompatible with the writer
`release-notes-generator@14` pulls in: every release note renders as a
bare `## 0.0.1 (date)` heading with no sections and no commits beneath
it, no step fails, and the release ships with an empty body. Check the
rendered notes, never the exit code.
## Testing
@@ -2046,13 +2064,65 @@ Feature branches and PRs are the norm, but direct pushes to `main` are allowed.
## CI
Five workflows in `.gitea/workflows/`. Four of them package and
Seven workflows in `.gitea/workflows/`. Five of them package and
publish (`arch-package`, `homebrew-formula`, `index-artifact`,
`android-apk`); only `ci.yml` gates, and it is the one to look at when
`android-apk`, `desktop-assets`); `release.yml` decides *whether* four of
those run at all; only `ci.yml` gates, and it is the one to look at when
deciding whether a push was healthy.
**`android-apk.yml` is the only one keyed on a tag and the only one
that can lose something irrecoverable.** It builds the signed
**`release.yml` is the entry point for all of it.** On every push to
`main` it reads the Conventional Commits since the last tag and, if any
is releasable, writes the changelog, pushes the tag and creates the Gitea
release whose body is that changelog section. `arch-package`,
`homebrew-formula`, `android-apk` and `desktop-assets` are all keyed on
`v*`, so **the tag push is what starts them** — nothing is released by
hand any more.
Four things about it are load-bearing:
- **The tag is pushed with a user PAT, not the Actions token.** Gitea,
like GitHub, does not start a workflow from a ref pushed by a
workflow's own token (go-gitea#33123). The token is what decides this,
so `PACKAGE_TOKEN` is handed to semantic-release as the
`repositoryUrl` credential and the push is attributed to a person.
- **That same limitation is used deliberately, once.** semantic-release
calls the first release of a tagless repo `1.0.0` and offers no way to
say otherwise, so a `v0.0.0` floor tag is what makes the first release
`0.0.1` — and it is pushed with the *Actions* token precisely so it
triggers nothing. All four publishers additionally skip `v0.0.0`
explicitly, cleanly rather than by failing, because a floor is not a
shipment.
- **The changelog commit must not re-enter the workflow.** The `git`
plugin pushes `chore(release): x.y.z` back to `main`; the job guards on
that subject rather than trusting `[skip ci]`.
- **An asset upload waits for the release to exist.** semantic-release
pushes the tag in `prepare` and creates the release in `publish`, so
the tag push that starts these workflows happens *before* there is a
release id to attach to. `scripts/release-asset.sh` polls for it. The
capacity-1 runner serialises things enough that this would usually work
by accident, which is the worst kind of bug.
**Releases restarted at `0.0.1`, which is a downgrade on every channel.**
pacman and Homebrew both silently offer no upgrade from the old `1.x`,
and Android refuses the install outright — its remedy is an uninstall
that takes the user's library. This was chosen over pacman's `epoch` and
over offsetting `versionCode`, on the grounds that both are permanent and
a reinstall is once. `packaging/homebrew/README.md` and
`docs/android-release.md` say so where a user would look.
**`desktop-assets.yml` publishes Linux and nothing else, and macOS is not
an oversight.** `GOOS=darwin CGO_ENABLED=0` fails at
`wails/v3/pkg/mac: build constraints exclude all Go files` — the darwin
backend is Objective-C behind cgo, so a `.app` needs a macOS host and the
runner is a Linux container. That is exactly why the Homebrew formula
builds from source on the user's own Mac. Windows *does* cross-compile
cleanly (`GOOS=windows CGO_ENABLED=0`, a couple of seconds — oto uses
WinMM through `x/sys`, sqlite is modernc's pure-Go driver, WebView2 is
COM syscalls, MPRIS is `linux && !android`-tagged) and is deliberately
not published: no Windows build of this app has ever been *run*, and no
tier here can exercise one.
**`android-apk.yml` is the one that can lose something irrecoverable.** It builds the signed
`arm64-v8a` APK (the only ABI Android can run this app on — see
`app/build.gradle`) on every `v*` tag and publishes it to the *generic* registry, which is
readable without credentials — the reason Obtainium can poll a plain
Makefile
+8 -4
View File
@@ -196,13 +196,17 @@ commit-check: ## Fail if a commit subject is not a Conventional Commit
# same .releaserc.yml CI does, so "why did that not cut a version" is
# answerable locally instead of by pushing and watching. Needs no
# credentials: --dry-run neither tags nor publishes.
#
# The pins must stay identical to release.yml's, which is where the note
# on holding the conventionalcommits preset at 9 lives -- at 10 the
# release notes come out empty with everything green.
release-dry: ## Print the version a merge to main would release
@npx --yes \
-p semantic-release@25 \
-p @semantic-release/commit-analyzer@14 \
-p @semantic-release/release-notes-generator@15 \
-p @semantic-release/changelog@6 \
-p @semantic-release/git@10 \
-p @semantic-release/commit-analyzer@13 \
-p @semantic-release/release-notes-generator@14 \
-p @semantic-release/changelog@7 \
-p @semantic-release/git@11 \
-p @semantic-release/exec@7 \
-p conventional-changelog-conventionalcommits@9 \
semantic-release --dry-run --no-ci
docs/android-release.md
+27 -1
View File
@@ -3,7 +3,33 @@
`.gitea/workflows/android-apk.yml` builds a signed `arm64-v8a` APK on
every `v*` tag and publishes it to Gitea's
**generic** package registry, which is readable without credentials —
which is what lets Obtainium poll a plain URL with no token.
which is what lets Obtainium poll a plain URL with no token. It also
attaches the same file to the Gitea release, which is what a person
looking at the release page downloads.
**Tags are not pushed by hand any more.** `.gitea/workflows/release.yml`
reads the Conventional Commits on every merge to `main`, decides the
version, and pushes the tag this workflow is keyed on — so releasing the
APK means merging a `fix:` or `feat:` commit, not running `git tag`. The
`workflow_dispatch` path below remains, for rebuilding a tag that already
exists.
## The 1.x installs cannot be upgraded to 0.0.x
Releases restarted at **0.0.1** when they became automatic (plan 017).
`versionCode` is computed as `maj*10000 + min*100 + pat`, so 0.0.1 is
**1** against the **10300** an installed 1.3.0 build carries — and
**Android refuses a downgrade outright**, with
`INSTALL_FAILED_VERSION_DOWNGRADE`.
The only way through is `adb uninstall app.yellowjacket` (or the
launcher's own uninstall) before installing 0.0.1, **and that takes the
device's library, playlists and play counts with it** — the same loss the
signing key section below exists to prevent, arrived at from the other
direction. This was chosen deliberately over offsetting `versionCode` by
a constant, on the grounds that the honest number is worth one reinstall
while an offset is permanent. The workflow prints a warning whenever the
code it computes is below 10600.
```
https://git.ljones.me/api/packages/yonlu/generic/yellowjacket-android/latest/yellowjacket.apk
packaging/homebrew/README.md
+15
View File
@@ -22,6 +22,21 @@ brew install shadow-puppet/yellowjacket/yellowjacket
no separate `brew tap` step. To build the tip of `main` instead of the latest
release, add `--HEAD`.
### Upgrading from 1.x needs a reinstall, once
Releases became automatic and restarted at **0.0.1** (plan 017), which is
*lower* than the `1.3.0` this tap last published. Homebrew compares versions
and has no equivalent of pacman's `epoch`, so `brew upgrade` sees a downgrade
and offers **nothing at all** — silently, which is indistinguishable from the
tap having gone stale.
```bash
brew uninstall yellowjacket && brew install shadow-puppet/yellowjacket/yellowjacket
```
Nothing is stored inside the Cellar, so this costs a rebuild and no data. It is
a one-time step: 0.0.2 onwards upgrade normally.
## How publishing works
This directory holds the **canonical** formula. The tap users install from lives