Closed OvermindDL1 closed 1 year ago
For note, this was based on my last PR so the shown commits are larger than expected. Just look at the most recent commit for RFG related changes on top of my last commit.
In addition RFG prefers reproducible builds, so no information like the build server host and such in the java since that breaks reproducibility and is bad for security as such, so that part is gone.
Yeah, that's fine. I did it because people were building their own jars and it was basically impossible to track down bugs as a result. Can we keep commit hash of the code in?
Yeah, that's fine. I did it because people were building their own jars and it was basically impossible to track down bugs as a result. Can we keep commit hash of the code in?
Already is, in a form, in short this is what RFG does:
1.21.3
or whatever, at which point the version will become just 1.21.3
, no need for commit hash because the semver of 1.21.3
or so is the commit hash you can jump to in git, because it's the tag.I think this is good, but perhaps we should point this as 1.21.x and close the 1.20.x branch. This is a breaking change probably in one way or another and I think the 1.20.x branch has been long-lived enough.
Effectively merged into 1.21.x
All remaining comments can be implemented as follow-on PR's.
This is not in a complete state, at the very least there are questions left.
By default RFG puts output jars in the normal java format, which won't likely match what you were doing before. In addition RFG prefers reproducible builds, so no information like the build server host and such in the java since that breaks reproducibility and is bad for security as such, so that part is gone. Etc... I can answer questions. Play around with it, etc...