Feature #10349

Make the filenames of Tails ISOs built from a branch unique

Added by anonym 2015-10-07 09:40:13 . Updated 2015-12-16 11:33:54 .

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Category:
Build system
Target version:
Tails_1.8
Start date:
2015-10-07
Due date:
% Done:

100%

Feature Branch:
feature/10349-unique-iso-filenames
Type of work:
Code
Blueprint:

Starter:
Affected tool:
Deliverable for:

Description

These are the ISO naming rules we currently use, from auto/build (slightly reformated):

# * if we build from a tag:          tails-$ARCH-$TAG.iso
# * if we build from a branch:       tails-$ARCH-$BRANCH-$VERSION-$DATE.iso
# * if Jenkins builds from a branch: tails-$ARCH-$BRANCH-$VERSION-$TIME-$COMMIT.iso


For me the most common use case is “build from a branch”, and I may build the same branch multiple times a day. Sometimes I want to keep the old image, but lose it due to the above naming rule, or if I’m lucky and remember this I have to rename the image before I start building.

I propose that we switch to using the same rule for both “build from a branch” and the Jenkins case, using the current Jenkins rule, i.e.:

# * if we build from a tag: tails-$ARCH-$TAG.iso
# * otherwise:              tails-$ARCH-$BRANCH-$VERSION-$TIME-$COMMIT.iso

Example (from an actual Jenkins build): tails-i386-feature_jessie-1.7-20150930T0408Z-01f67bf.iso

This will also reduce the code complexity of auto/build somewhat, which is a nice bonus. Any objections?

Subtasks

History

#1 Updated by intrigeri 2015-10-12 04:22:50

> I propose that we switch to using the same rule for both “build from a branch” and the Jenkins case, using the current Jenkins rule, i.e.:

Yes, please.

Low-priority compared to the other stuff you have for 1.7, of course, and don’t count on me for reviewing/testing, but I understand you may need some (structured) procrastination :)

#2 Updated by anonym 2015-10-12 05:44:00

  • Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress

Applied in changeset commit:28d2fddb988115c7cc469f99765f7c8261ee9d85.

#3 Updated by anonym 2015-10-12 05:46:34

  • % Done changed from 0 to 50
  • QA Check set to Ready for QA
  • Feature Branch set to feature/10349-unique-iso-filenames

intrigeri wrote:
> > I propose that we switch to using the same rule for both “build from a branch” and the Jenkins case, using the current Jenkins rule, i.e.:
>
> Yes, please.
>
> Low-priority compared to the other stuff you have for 1.7, of course, and don’t count on me for reviewing/testing, but I understand you may need some (structured) procrastination :)

It was easy enough, and I’ve merged the branch into experimental. Any way, I mostly need this when working with experimental (which I build locally a lot with all sorts of crazy branches merged in temporarily) so I’m pretty satisfied without having this merged ASAP.

#4 Updated by intrigeri 2015-12-06 16:45:19

  • Status changed from In Progress to Fix committed
  • % Done changed from 50 to 100

Applied in changeset commit:8c15633ff2af9834ac0354828508876e5a6fbf19.

#5 Updated by intrigeri 2015-12-06 16:47:04

  • Target version changed from Tails_1.7 to Tails_1.8
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Pass
  • Type of work changed from Discuss to Code

Excellent, merged!

Reminder: it’s the RM’s duty to find reviewers for their branches (and more generally, for the branches they can’t review in due time). I’m glad I noticed this one while doing some ticket triaging :)

#6 Updated by anonym 2015-12-16 11:33:54

  • Status changed from Fix committed to Resolved