The repository moved from inbuxa/ihasmail-inbuxa to inbuxa/inbuxa-webmail,
matching inbuxa-server and inbuxa-admin. Point the source links, the image
name and the package link at the new name. The OAuth client id stays
ihasmail-inbuxa, since that is what the server registers.
The Gitea registry stays authoritative; GHCR becomes a copy of it, the way
the GitHub repository is a copy of the Gitea one. After the tag build has
pushed the release image to the registry, a new ghcr job copies it to
ghcr.io under the same version tag and :latest with `imagetools create` --
a copy, not a rebuild, so the digest on GHCR is the digest on the registry.
Anything still pulling the old ghcr.io name, including the TrueNAS app
submission, keeps receiving releases. The job uses the run's own token and is
left out of the status reported to Gitea, so a GHCR problem cannot fail a
release.
The mirror carries tags to GitHub but not releases, so the replica's
Releases page -- and anyone watching the repository there -- stopped at the
last release made on GitHub. After the tag build has published, a new
github-release job copies the tag's Gitea release to a GitHub release: the
same notes, with PR and issue numbers rewritten to Gitea links, the same
files, and a line pointing back to the Gitea release.
It uses the run's own token and is left out of the status reported to
Gitea, so it cannot fail a release. With no Gitea release for the tag it
does nothing.
Commit statuses belong to the commit, not the tag. Upstream v* tags and
inbuxa-v* tags can sit on the same commit, so Gitea's github job, waiting
for "github/ci (tag)", could read the other tag's older result and move on
before this tag's build finished. A tag's status is now "github/ci (tag
<name>)" on both sides.
The per-architecture digest artifacts are also overwritable and kept for a
week, so re-running a build, or publish on its own, still works.
The mirror can push one commit twice in quick succession. GitHub then
starts two runs and cancels the older, and that run's report job posted
"failure" for the commit. Gitea's github job, seeing the newest status,
failed the check while the surviving run was still building and later
passed.
A cancelled run now posts nothing and leaves the result to the run that
superseded it. A real failure still reports failure.
Gitea stays the source of truth and push-mirrors this repository to
GitHub. The org variable BUILD_ON, set on both forges, picks where the
heavy work runs:
- unset: nothing changes. Gitea's jobs run as before and every job in
the GitHub workflow is skipped.
- github: Gitea skips its test, build and publish jobs. GitHub Actions
runs them on hosted runners, arm64 natively rather than under QEMU,
publishes to the same Gitea registry, and posts a commit status back
to Gitea. A new `github` job in Gitea's ci.yml waits for that status
and passes or fails with it, so the Gitea run still decides a PR.
Announcing and releasing stay on Gitea whatever BUILD_ON says.
The GitHub-era workflows go: cleanup.yml pruned GHCR, release.yml was a
second weekly scheduler, and publish.yml pushed to GHCR. Their work is
in the new .github/workflows/ci.yml or stays on Gitea. dependabot.yml
goes too: its pull request branches would exist only on GitHub, and
every mirror sync would delete them.
A tag is a mutable pointer. `actions/checkout@v7` is whatever the
publisher last moved v7 to, so using one is not trusting the version that
was reviewed -- it is trusting every future version, including whatever
is pushed by whoever compromises the publisher's account. That is the
shape of the tj-actions/changed-files compromise: no repository changed a
line, the tags moved underneath them, and the action began dumping runner
memory to the logs.
Each `uses:` now carries the full 40-character SHA with its release in a
trailing comment. Read the comment for the version; the SHA is what runs.
Dependabot already covers github-actions weekly and updates both halves
together, so keeping current costs nothing.
The dataaxiom cleanup action was already pinned -- it is handed
`packages: write` and deletes things, so it was worth doing early -- and
only picks up the trailing-version convention here. Its comment loses the
"rather than a moving major tag" framing, which is no longer what makes
it different from its neighbors now that they are all pinned too.
The two `uses: ./.github/workflows/...` entries are local paths, not
actions: they always resolve within the commit already running and there
is no SHA to pin.
Three pins and a types package all described Node 22, and moving any one
of them alone puts the build somewhere the others are not: @types/node
on its own would typecheck against APIs the runtime does not have, and
the base image on its own would ship a major CI never exercised. So
ci.yml, publish.yml, release.yml, both Dockerfile stages and
@types/node move in one change.
Worth knowing before this is deployed: 26 is Current, not LTS. node:26-
alpine reports lts=none, where 24-alpine is Krypton and the 22-alpine we
are leaving is Jod. 26 is due to become Active LTS in October. Nothing
here needs 26 over 24 -- the pins are a single number if the LTS line is
preferred.
engines stays at >=20.19, which is the floor for running ihasmail rather
than the version we build it on; the README's recommendation follows CI
to 26.
Checked on the runtime, not just in CI: the image builds on 26-alpine,
starts, and answers /api/health, and the login, SSE and body-carrying
POST checks from the node-server upgrade pass against a server on
26.8.1.
CI triggers on a push to main and on pull requests, and on nothing else.
That left no way to put a check on 7a1e5ee -- the commit production is
running -- after GitHub's Actions outage on 2026-08-26 orphaned every run
created during it.
Those runs are not merely slow. GitHub accepted them, allocated zero
jobs, and left them in a state its own API contradicts itself about:
gh run rerun -> "cannot be rerun; This workflow is already running"
gh run cancel -> "Cannot cancel a workflow run that is completed"
gh api -> status=queued, conclusion=null, jobs=0
Neither recoverable nor clearable, and with no manual trigger the only
remaining option would have been an empty commit pushed to main to move
the ref -- which is both a junk commit and against how changes land here.
workflow_dispatch also covers the ordinary case of wanting a check on a
commit that predates a CI change.
jcoffey-dev
dependabot[bot]