Policy set by _null. The stack pins :vX.Y.Z — never :dev, never :latest.
The reason is what a pointer cannot do. A stack file naming :dev says "dev"
today and will still say "dev" after the image underneath it changes, so the
file records a preference rather than a fact and "what is running?" has no
answer that survives the next push. Rollback is worse: there is nothing to roll
back TO, because a pointer only ever names now.
deploy.sh: with no --tag it now resolves the newest published NUMBERED version
from the registry and says which it picked, instead of defaulting to :dev. A
floating tag is refused outright, with --allow-floating as the loud escape hatch
for the one case that is not a mistake — reproducing a fault on whatever a
pointer currently is.
release.sh: no longer moves :dev. It published both tags until now because the
stack followed the pointer; under this policy nothing deploys :dev, so moving it
would only publish something that misrepresents what is running.
scripts/docker-push.sh deleted, with its npm script. Its entire job was building
and pushing an unnumbered :dev with no version bump and no guards, which is now
the exact thing the policy exists to prevent. Keeping a command that quietly
violates a policy is how the policy stops being true.
:dev and :latest stay in the registry, frozen. Not deleted: the running
container was created from :dev, and removing the tag an existing deployment
names is how a recreate fails to pull.
Stack 58 still pins :dev as this lands. Correcting that is the first deploy made
under the policy, and it is why the default resolves a version rather than
reusing whatever the stack already names.
Guards proven: default resolves v0.8.3; --tag dev refused; --tag latest refused;
--allow-floating warns and proceeds; unpublished tag still refused.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
scripts/release.sh — publish. Bump, guards, build, verify the image's own
version label, push :vX.Y.Z and move :dev, commit last, tag.
Adapted, not copied. The arguments are PrivacyLLC's and were paid for there; the
mechanism is this project's, because almost none of it transferred. Three
differences, each a fact about this repository rather than a preference:
- It gates on verify.sh, not a test suite, because there is not one. The
original refuses to release on a half-run 1,600-test run. This one says out
loud that a build, a secret scan and a doc-header check are not tests and that
nothing in the gate touched a route, a form or an API response.
- It moves :dev as well as publishing :vX.Y.Z, because Portainer stack 58
follows :dev. That makes :dev a pointer and never evidence.
- It checks the public origin in three files, not one. The original passes its
origin in as a build arg; here https://queuenorth.com is written out in
src/lib/seo.js, src/components/SEO.jsx and scripts/prerender.js and is baked
into every canonical URL, og:url, sitemap.xml and robots.txt. The guard asks
whether the three still agree.
Why this was needed: publishing was `npm run docker:push` with the bump as a
separate thing to remember, and it was not remembered. package.json said 0.8.3
while four commits announced "batch 0.9.0" through "0.9.3", and NO image was
ever published for any of them — the registry's newest tag is v0.8.3.
No prune. The original has one; this project has published thirteen tags in its
life, deleting a published image is irreversible, and the one that matters is
whichever the container was created from — exactly what a newest-N rule gets
wrong.
scripts/deploy.sh — deploy, and do not build. The template's deploy.py builds,
pushes AND deploys; adopting it beside release.sh would mean two commands that
both build, a second image for the same code, and two answers to "what is
running". This does only the missing half: point stack 58 at an already
published tag, having taken a verified backup first.
Its most important guard is not the obvious one. Portainer treats a stack PUT as
the whole desired state, so sending it without the stack's Env array would strip
twelve variables — the reCAPTCHA secret and the Zoho form tokens among them —
and the container would come back HEALTHY while quietly capturing no leads. It
reads them, counts them, sends them back, and refuses outright if none.
Guards proven to refuse, not assumed: already-published tag, http origin,
trailing-slash origin, the three origin constants drifted, dirty tree, bad flag,
unpublished deploy tag, missing Portainer key, wrong stack id.
One real bug found and fixed while testing: the image-line rewrite used
`python3 -` with a heredoc while also piping the stack file to stdin, so python
tried to execute the YAML.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Neo