-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.5k
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
[CI:BUILD] packit: handle builds for RC releases #20672
Conversation
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: lsm5 The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
The `version_no_tilde` rpm macro correctly handles both `vX.Y.Z` and `vX.Y.Z-rcN` git tags. Using this macro instead of `version` will soon allow Packit to handle RC builds correctly. Accompanying change in Packit to land soon: packit/packit#2149 [NO NEW TESTS NEEDED] Signed-off-by: Lokesh Mandvekar <[email protected]>
3ad57eb
to
6fa4a97
Compare
@cevich why does secret scan fail in https://github.com/lsm5/podman/actions/runs/6849732287/job/18622509799 but pass in the task list on the PR? |
@containers/podman-maintainers PTAL. This should be safe to merge. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
/lgtm |
c838a69
into
containers:main
@lsm5 job shows:
That should not be possible, since the I'll add investigation of these into a "fix gitleaks" jira card I already have open. |
Oh I figured it out! The key is very subtle in the job title:
That job ran against your personal fork of podman. You must have a |
The
version_no_tilde
rpm macro correctly handles bothvX.Y.Z
andvX.Y.Z-rcN
git tags. Using this macro instead ofversion
will soon allow Packit to handle RC builds correctly.Accompanying change in Packit to land soon:
packit/packit#2149
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?