f72650d2de
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented Client version string is inconsistent. Building `v20.0.0-beta.8` tag locally produces binaries that report `v20.0.0-beta.8` version but binaries built in guix would report `v20.0.0rc1-g3e732a952226a20505f907e4fd9b3fdbb14ea5ee` instead. Building any commit after `v20.0.0-beta.8` locally would result in versions like `v20.0.0rc1-8c94153d2497` which is close but it's still yet another format. And both versions with `rc1` in their names are confusing cause you'd expect them to mention `beta.8` instead maybe (or is it just me? :D ). ## What was done? Change it so that the version string would look like this: on tag: ~`v20.0.0-beta.8-dev` or `v20.0.0-beta.8-gitarc`~ `v20.0.0-beta.8` post-tag: ~`v20.0.0-beta.8-1-gb837e08164-gitarc`~ `v20.0.0-beta.8-1-gb837e08164` post-tag format is `recent tag`-`commits since that tag`-`g+12 chars of commit hash`-`dirty (optional)` ~-`dev or gitarc`~ ~`dev`/`gitarc` suffixes should help avoiding confusion with the release versions and they also indicate the way non-release binaries were built.~ Note that release binaries do not use any of this, they still use `PACKAGE_VERSION` from `configure` like before. Also, `CLIENT_VERSION_RC` is no longer used in this setup so it was removed. Few things aren't clear to me yet: 1. Version bump in `configure.ac` no longer affects the reported version (unless it's an actual release). Are there any downsides I might be missing? 2. Which tag should we use on `develop` once we bump version in configure? `v21.0.0-init`? `v21.0.0-alpha1`? 3. How is it going to behave once `merge master back into develop` kind of PR is merged? E.g. say `develop` branch is on `v21.0.0-alpha1` tag and we merge v20.1.0 from `master` back into it. Will this bring `v20.1.0` release tag into `develop`? Will it become the one that will be used from that moment? If so we will probably need another tag on `develop` every time such PR is merged e.g. `v21.0.0-alpha2` (or whatever the next number is). Don't think these are blockers but would like to hear thoughts from others. ## How Has This Been Tested? Built binaries locally, built them using guix at a specific tag and at some commit on top of it. ## Breaking Changes n/a ## Checklist: - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_ |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| ci | ||
| deploy | ||
| develop | ||
| guix | ||
| README.md | ||
Containers
This directory contains configuration files for containerization utilities.
Currently two Docker containers exist, ci defines how Dash's GitLab CI container is built and the dev builds on top of the ci to provide a containerized development environment that is as close as possible to CI for contributors! See also Dash on Docker Hub i.e. for the dashd container.
Usage Guide
We utilise edrevo's dockerfile-plus, a syntax extension that leverages Docker BuildKit to reduce the amount of repetitive code.
As BuildKit is opt-in within many currently supported versions of Docker (as of this writing), you need to
set the following environment variables before continuing. While not needed after the initial docker-compose build
(barring updates to the Dockerfile), we recommend placing this in your ~/.bash_profile/~/.zshrc or equivalent
export DOCKER_BUILDKIT=1
export COMPOSE_DOCKER_CLI_BUILD=1
After that, it's simply a matter of building and running your own development container. You can use extensions for your IDE like Visual Studio Code's Remote Containers to run terminal commands from inside the terminal and build Dash Core.
cd contrib/containers/develop
docker-compose build
docker-compose run container