ned14/llfio

release `20230311` isn't part of any (pushed) branch

BurningEnlightenment opened this issue · 8 comments

is that intentional? I thought release tags should be on the master branch 🤔

grafik

ned14 commented

Which page does it show you that warning?

It shows on the tag page itself and on the referenced commit

ned14 commented

Looks like something went wrong on github's side of things - it appears to have not merged all of the issue0113 branch into develop, but rather part of it. I've done a manual merge locally using my local copy of the issue0113 branch, if that works, I'll merge to master and reissue the release.

ned14 commented

Ok, that's finally done. That was stressful.

What happened?

ned14 commented

Just every time I tried to fix it it didn't fix it. Eventually manually deleted everything, redid everything, that worked.

Not helped I'm doing my day job, and context switching does not generate high quality work.

dg0yt commented

Maybe this could have been solved by a merge commit in master? Don't re-tag again, it causes confusion with all independent records of history (vcpkg, repology etc.).

ned14 commented

The problem was that github got "sticky" with the tag 20230311 and silently ignored attempts to rewrite it with a SHA from a known branch. The fact that the SHA it referred to was an orphaned SHA was because github didn't merge the branch which made the release into develop branch, rather it merged something else which was most but not all of the branch in question (I believe an earlier edition of that PR). I'm going to assume a new bug in github there, I've done that same pattern before and it worked just fine in the past.

I did end up solving it by doing a second merge commit using my local branch here which contained the correct final fix the one which passed CI on github and which formed the release, and I've since then merged develop to master. So I did end up doing exactly what you suggested, as I was keen to not rewrite git history.

The price was having to rewrite the release, sorry about that, but I figured not rewriting git history was more important.