| 12 Aug 2021 |
 _hc | Ah, I see, you ran it manually? | 13:49:29 |
![@_oftc_Licaon_Kter[xmpp]:matrix.org](./avatar/Licaon_Kter%5Bxmpp%5D) Licaon_Kter[xmpp] | Yes, see RFP, as I added the whole output | 13:50:56 |
 jochensp | Licaon_Kter[xmpp]: you forgot CurrentVersion:/CurrentVersionCode: | 13:56:33 |
| Licaon_Kter[xmpp] | Why would that matter? | 13:56:50 |
| Licaon_Kter[xmpp] | I've done this before without that data, afaik | 13:57:11 |
| jochensp | because checkupdates needs the data to decide if there is a new version | 13:57:52 |
| jochensp | ..and to update it in that case | 13:58:07 |
| jochensp | at least I can only reproduce your error without those lines | 13:58:21 |
| Licaon_Kter[xmpp] | I believe you, and indeed it works now | 13:59:44 |
| Licaon_Kter[xmpp] | Strange that I don't usually set those when creating recipes for MRs. | 13:59:44 |
| Licaon_Kter[xmpp] | Good to know what the fix it, maybe the error message can be improved though. | 13:59:44 |
| Licaon_Kter[xmpp] | Ok, the entry was added, but....I didn't follow the checkupdate changes that you(?) did to improve stuff...so...why ain't it putting the Tag as `commit:`? It put a hash there :( | 14:01:41 |
| Licaon_Kter[xmpp] | jochensp: ^^^ | 14:01:42 |
| jochensp | Licaon_Kter[xmpp]: we agreed on checkupdates should use the hash some month ago | 14:03:33 |
| Licaon_Kter[xmpp] | Ok, I do get the point, we had devs that started cleaning up Tags pfft :( :)) | 14:06:12 |
| jochensp | Yeah.. | 14:06:41 |
| jochensp | And there is no review of check updates | 14:07:10 |
| Licaon_Kter[xmpp] | _hc: | 14:16:54 |
| Licaon_Kter[xmpp] | > yeah sounds right | 14:16:55 |
| Licaon_Kter[xmpp] | > https://www.macrumors.com/2021/08/11/antitrust-app-store-bill-apple-google/ | 14:16:55 |
| Licaon_Kter[xmpp] | That Iceman commentator know the truth, this "alternative store" thing was never implemented anywhere at all, it will be piracy and tears all over :rolleyes: | 14:16:55 |
 εΉΈη« (πππΎπ/πππΎπ) | In reply to @_oftc_jochensp:matrix.org
Licaon_Kter[xmpp]: we agreed on checkupdates should use the hash some month ago which makes sense. but does make my work on verifying signed tags a bit harder. any thoughts on that? | 15:13:38 |
| εΉΈη« (πππΎπ/πππΎπ) | (having both the tag and the hash would be nice) | 15:14:32 |
 cde | tag is also more human-readable than a hash | 15:58:23 |
| cde | tag=git describe $commitHash | 15:59:03 |
 Sylvia | Yes but things can be re-tagged | 16:20:55 |
| Sylvia | So a commit is the only thing 100% certain | 16:21:02 |
| jochensp | hm.. maybe we could use git describe --long | 16:21:21 |
| εΉΈη« (πππΎπ/πππΎπ) | or maybe use e.g. <tag>|<hash>|<hash> (<tag>) (with the first one being deprecated in favour of the last one)? | 16:56:08 |
| jochensp | the good thing with git describe --long is that git understands it, so we don't have to change other code (hopefully :D ) | 16:57:04 |
