2 ms·
Time is sequential. Otherwise, sequential build numbers are kind of hard to orchestrate in a distributed architecture. Not impossible. But it introduces complex
by jillesvangurp 2y ago
Time is sequential. Otherwise, sequential build numbers are kind of hard to orchestrate in a distributed architecture. Not impossible. But it introduces complexities if you have many build machines.
I don't think semver compatibility is that relevant/meaningful here. Normally I'd also want the branch name as part of the version tag. We do that with our docker containers. Adding the timestamp at the beginning is a good idea as it helps sort things by recency. I might copy that. The CI build id is nice, but I typically don't archive these anyway. All this concatenated gets a bit long.
- rswail 2y agogit describe gives you what you want. It gives you the nearest tag, the number of commits from that tag and the git commit ID.
- jillesvangurp 2y agoWe don't use git tags for ordinary deploys. Every push to production gets deployed. And a timestamp is useful for sorting lists of container images.
- hifromwork 2y ago>Time is sequential. Otherwise, sequential build numbers are kind of hard to orchestrate in a distributed architecture Time is sequential, but this means that just building an older version is now a production breaking incident. That's weird to me, but I'm not a CD person.