ci: monotonic prerelease versions + serialize CI on shared runner
Two CI hygiene fixes uncovered while validating against the live fleet.
1. Same-day prerelease packages were being ordered by RPM-vercmp's
alpha-vs-digit precedence on the git SHA fragment, not by commit
chronology. With release stamps like "0.1.${YYYYMMDD}git${SHA}",
two commits on the same day produce the same numeric prefix and
rpmvercmp falls back to comparing the alphanumeric SHA suffixes,
where digit-leading SHAs are ranked above alpha-leading ones —
completely unrelated to which commit landed first. Verified with
rpmdev-vercmp:
gitabc1234 < gitdef5678 (old scheme — purely lexicographic)
Bumping the timestamp prefix to second-precision (%Y%m%d%H%M%S)
makes the numeric prefix strictly monotonic for any chronologically-
ordered commits, so the SHA fragment becomes a debug identifier
only — never participates in version ordering.
2. ci.yml and build-prerelease.yml both target the `rust` runner label
and both auto-trigger on push to main. The act-based runner reuses
/root/.cache/act/<hash>/hostexecutor/ across concurrent jobs, so
ci.yml's clippy and build-prerelease.yml's build-cortex were racing
each other's checkout/cleanup steps and corrupting in-flight
compile artifacts. Real fix is in gongfoo; workflow-level workaround
is a shared concurrency group with cancel-in-progress=false so the
two workflows queue sequentially on the same ref.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
@@ -6,7 +6,11 @@
|
||||
#
|
||||
# Required defines at rpmbuild time:
|
||||
# cortex_version e.g. "0.1.16"
|
||||
# cortex_prerelease e.g. "0.1.20260518gitabcdef0" (used as Release)
|
||||
# cortex_prerelease e.g. "0.1.20260518140530.gitabcdef0"
|
||||
# ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
|
||||
# commit time (sec) commit sha
|
||||
# (used as Release; the timestamp prefix
|
||||
# keeps same-day builds strictly ordered.)
|
||||
|
||||
%global _build_id_links none
|
||||
%global debug_package %{nil}
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user