Packaging problems of 0.6.0

[marcospb19]

The release of 0.6.0 was a bit problematic, if you're a packager, consider reading these:

Problem 1 (#803)

My automatic release workflow was creating the tag 0.6.0 before building the assets and creating the release, if your packaging workflow triggered before the release was done, it likely broke your package.

Solution:

I'll use tags in the format 0.6.0-rc1 for release candidates, and when releasing, I'll create the tag 0.6.0, make sure to NOT make a release for release candidates, as those will be deleted at any time, only tags in the pattern "\d+\.\d+\.\d+" can be considered releases.

If you're just watching for the /releases pages, 0.6.0-rc1 will never be a public release, so you don't need to worry about that.

Regex

(It's actually "(0|[1-9]\d*)" instead of "\d+", but it's a subset of the former so don't bother.)

Problem 2 (#801)

I accidentally forgot to rename a folder, and that ended up changing the format of the assets archives, this will most likely break your package.

Solution:

I'm restoring it back to the previous folder structure, the 0.6.1 version will be shipped with the correct structure we've had for a while now, and the assets for 0.6.0 will be retroactively updated to reflect that too.

(There is an unnecessary level of nesting in the assets, but there are many packages to justify fixing that now.)

I apologize for the inconvenience, going to fix these right now.

Tasks

• Fix script so it creates the correct folder structure.
• Move workflow to accept new x.y.z-rcN format.
• Update 0.6.0 binaries to have the correct archive structure.
• Release 0.6.1 with a bugfix and the correct archive structure.

[marcospb19]

https://github.com/ouch-org/ouch/releases/tag/0.6.1 is out, I'll leave this issue pinned for a couple weeks to increase visibility.