-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 166
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
Build missing sunos packages / The case of the wrong sha's #586
Comments
doodle... I just compiled and promoted the v4 and v6 releases. I figured that the build process would be deterministic and didn't check the sha's when I promoted the assets. The result is that a bunch of the promoted releases now have different sha's then the original release. @jbergstroem do we have a way to roll back the release server? @rvagg / @nodejs/ctc is this an issue? Should we just keep the new shas? I'm a bit concerned about there now being different releases with the same sha's in the wild. Sorry about making this mess edit: we can see the original sha's in the nodejs.org blog releases 6.9.3 before
6.9.3 after
|
discussed with @rvagg, he is going to attempt to recover the promoted releases from backup. |
OK, I could only find valid backups for v4.6.2 v4.7.0 and v6.9.2 in /backup/static/dist/nodejs/release on the backup server. @jbergstroem is this because the backup script hasn't run since the newest two were out, today/yesterday? Is there an incremental for dist or only this? Is it just because I caught it before the backup ran again that I happened to catch the old versions of these files (mtimes on them put them earlier than today and SHASUMS indicates they are the original—compared to blog—I haven't shasumed them myself). Is there anywhere else that we might find original copies of v4.7.1 and v6.9.3 other than in ci-release.nodejs.org jobs as artifacts? What I've done with v4.6.2 v4.7.0 and v6.9.2 is the following:
So, @MylesBorins, they are in staging now for you to re-promote. If you run For the other builds, we have two ways to add just the sunos-x64 binaries:
And fwiw, the original releasers don't need to trigger the builds on ci-release, they only need to promote so they can sign. Any one of us who has ci-release access can trigger them at any time and they'll just wait in staging for the appropriate person, so no need for complex people-coordination to make this happen. |
If we can't recover the original v4.7.1 and v6.9.3 then my vote would be to simply update the blog posts with the new SHASUMS rather than mess around with pulling them out individually from Jenkins. The problem's we're having are simply about discrepancies which we can fix with brute force on the blog rather than attempting to roll back. |
Unfortunately (in this case), we don't increment these: https://github.com/nodejs/build/blob/master/backup/backup_scripts/dist.sh
This is a big no-no for me. The blog posts are not the only place where these checksums are stored. Every package manager that's been updated have probably stored their own sum. The only way forward are version bumps. Each artifact at release needs to be considered pristine. I think this also should sink into the workflow we do with releases. I'm not quite sure why these changed between the runs but one way of handling this could be making files read only on the dist server? |
Case in point:
Doing another minor is probably the simplest way for most parties? |
@jbergstroem do you mean a |
@gibfahn yeah. |
Makes sense to me (but I don't have to do the release 😉 ). If we're going to do it the sooner the better though right? |
So I just attempted to promote the release and found that the permissions are set incorrectly and I cannot promote the builds. They are currently set to 755 rather than 775, and as such the build cannot be promoted |
Fixed the ones we had backups of. v4.7.1 and v6.9.3 still have the wrong shas |
I've proposed new releases v4.7.2 and v6.9.4 that are simply semver patch bumps to remove ambiguits with the release nodejs/node#10639 Please chime in those issues on thoughts about the special releases |
point taken, good call on doing brand new releases to clear things up @MylesBorins |
v4.7.2 and v6.9.4 have been released to fix this issue. I am going to go through and update the blog posts with the missing shas and information. Should we make an amendment to the v4.7.1 and v6.9.3 posts to explain what happened? Should we include the sha's that are now on the server? |
+1 to updating the v4.7.1 and v6.9.3 blog posts to point people to the later version and including both SHAs they might have. |
Closing, reopen if we should revisit |
These need to be built and promoted
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: