github-starred/vikunja
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/go-vikunja/vikunja.git synced 2026-07-10 19:53:26 -05:00
Code Issues 690 Packages Projects Releases 11 Wiki Activity

[GH-ISSUE #2161] Publish a :stable tagged container image #6565

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-04-20 17:09:41 -05:00 by GiteaMirror · 3 comments
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-20 17:09:41 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @kmohrf on GitHub (Jan 26, 2026).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/go-vikunja/vikunja/issues/2161

Description

Hi,

looking at the available container/docker image tags, I was under the impression that :latest would be the most recent stable release and :unstable would be the most recent unstable release.

Looking at #2149 it seems like the release candidates for v1 are published under the :latest tag. This is somewhat surprising and broke OIDC in my Vikunja instance, caused by auto-updating to the current :latest image.

Would you consider publishing a separate :stable container image tag or using the :latest tag only for stable releases?

Thank you very much for your time & your work on Vikunja!

Cheers

Konrad

Which alternatives did you consider using instead?

The only alternative I see would be to manually track releases and update whenever a new stable release is published. That is reasonable, but given that Vikunja releases have been very smooth in the past I don’t feel too bad doing auto-updates (especially with backups). This is the first problematic regression I’ve personally witnessed in almost two years (kudos for that!).

Originally created by @kmohrf on GitHub (Jan 26, 2026). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/go-vikunja/vikunja/issues/2161 ### Description Hi, looking at the available container/docker image tags, I was under the impression that `:latest` would be the most recent stable release and `:unstable` would be the most recent unstable release. Looking at #2149 it seems like the release candidates for v1 are published under the `:latest` tag. This is somewhat surprising and broke OIDC in my Vikunja instance, caused by auto-updating to the current `:latest` image. Would you consider publishing a separate `:stable` container image tag or using the `:latest` tag only for stable releases? Thank you very much for your time & your work on Vikunja! Cheers Konrad ### Which alternatives did you consider using instead? The only alternative I see would be to manually track releases and update whenever a new stable release is published. That is reasonable, but given that Vikunja releases have been very smooth in the past I don’t feel too bad doing auto-updates (especially with backups). This is the first problematic regression I’ve personally witnessed in almost two years (kudos for that!).
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-20 17:09:42 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@kolaente commented on GitHub (Jan 26, 2026):

The question is, why does your installation auto-update without you verifying changes?

The :latest tag is supposed to contain only stable releases. Because of a bug in the release pipeline, it was also used to trigger for the release candidate. Because downgrading is not supported, we'll have to continue that path until the next full release.

<!-- gh-comment-id:3799966433 --> @kolaente commented on GitHub (Jan 26, 2026): The question is, why does your installation auto-update without you verifying changes? The `:latest` tag is supposed to contain only stable releases. Because of a bug in the release pipeline, it was also used to trigger for the release candidate. Because downgrading is not supported, we'll have to continue that path until the next full release.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-20 17:09:43 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@kmohrf commented on GitHub (Jan 26, 2026):

The question is, why does your installation auto-update without you verifying changes?

That was a deliberate decision because I’d rather stay up to date and rollback in case of problems than making every release a review-process that might postpone updates and security fixes. I often do this kind of hosting in my spare time, for free and for other people and need to keep the load down. It also keeps me on my toes when it comes to backup and restore processes.

My favorite thing is projects that publish separate container image tags for major versions (like :v1). I usually stick to those and then do manual reviews between major releases.

I’m not saying that you should bend to my wishes here. If you see the value in it, I’m happy, but if you don’t that’s fine with me. In fact, you’ve already said that :latest should not have included the RC releases, which means my initial assumption of :latest being stable seems to have been correct and problems like these just happen sometimes.

Feel free to close this issue and thanks again!

<!-- gh-comment-id:3800261417 --> @kmohrf commented on GitHub (Jan 26, 2026): > The question is, why does your installation auto-update without you verifying changes? That was a deliberate decision because I’d rather stay up to date and rollback in case of problems than making every release a review-process that might postpone updates and security fixes. I often do this kind of hosting in my spare time, for free and for other people and need to keep the load down. It also keeps me on my toes when it comes to backup and restore processes. My favorite thing is projects that publish separate container image tags for major versions (like `:v1`). I usually stick to those and then do manual reviews between major releases. I’m not saying that you should bend to my wishes here. If you see the value in it, I’m happy, but if you don’t that’s fine with me. In fact, you’ve already said that `:latest` should not have included the RC releases, which means my initial assumption of `:latest` being stable seems to have been correct and problems like these just happen sometimes. Feel free to close this issue and thanks again!
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-20 17:09:44 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@kmohrf commented on GitHub (Feb 2, 2026):

@kolaente I’ve noticed that the new 1.0 release also has a :1 (and even a :1.0) container tag on docker hub. Thanks for that!

From my POV this and the clarification about the :latest tag more than resolves my original proposal/issue.

<!-- gh-comment-id:3835852464 --> @kmohrf commented on GitHub (Feb 2, 2026): @kolaente I’ve noticed that the new 1.0 release also has a `:1` (and even a `:1.0`) container tag on docker hub. Thanks for that! From my POV this and the clarification about the `:latest` tag more than resolves my original proposal/issue.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
area/api
area/attachments
area/auth
area/avatars
area/backup-restore
area/caldav
area/calendar-view
area/comments
area/config
area/database
area/desktop
area/docker
area/email
area/favorites
area/filters
area/frontend
area/gantt
area/i18n
area/import-export
area/internal-code
area/kanban
area/labels
area/list-view
area/mobile
area/notifications
area/permissions
area/projects
area/pwa
area/recurring-tasks
area/reminders
area/search
area/shortcuts
area/subtasks
area/sync
area/table-view
area/task-editor
area/task-metadata
area/task-relations
area/teams
area/theming
area/time-tracking
area/typesense
area/views
area/webhooks
bug
changes requested
concern/accessibility
concern/performance
concern/regression
concern/ux
confirmed
db/mysql
dependencies
enhancement
good first issue
help wanted
integration/inbound
integration/outbound
kind/bug
kind/feature
needs reproduction
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 question
security
support
upstream issue
waiting for reply
wontfix
No Label
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
GiteaMirror ninjasurge
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: github-starred/vikunja#6565
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?