Janek Zangenberg
Janek Zangenberg
> > that due to the rc suffix it wouldn't be considered a production release > > If all people would stick to "best practice", it could be dealt with...
> What was the exact order of events? At which point did you build the APK? Can you recount all steps from that point? Because the commit embedded in the...
> The APK claims to be built from 3c1cbf21327a768264e39dd2e7b1ced91078f28b – which DID exist an hour ago, but seems to be gone now Where do you see that btw?
If I download the APK and look into META-INF/version-control-info.textproto it says it was built from d8b9fa6d25d7ca85d76e9d890c7c9d57ecc90649, which is exactly the commit the release was tagged on.
> Do your build steps correspond to that? Yes. The routine commits the latest changes, builds the apk, and then creates the github release on that commit with the built...
> Somehow, the IzzyOnDroid badge is missing in the row there 😉 Yeah because someone else must have submitted the app there. Up until recently I had no idea it...
I think it was the other way around, I built the APK from [d160247](https://github.com/w2sv/FileNavigator/commit/d1602474ec5f5f3439777f1e8384a9eac75b0079), then my Make publishing routine threw an error during the upload to the playstore, because the...
I could simply create a new release, I have one at the ready anyways. Would that be a valid workaround? :D
Done: https://github.com/w2sv/FileNavigator/releases/tag/0.1.1
Uff...