Adding VersionStream for neo4j-2025.11

[octo-sts]

No description provided.

[octo-sts]

🔄 Build Failed: Git Checkout Error

Expected commit 503a3228c34cb48495838fb7866b46d1a7a49640 for 2025.11.2, found 92013cbcc997b8b349ec385c5b1d734f9d9df496

Build Details

Category	Details
Build System	melange
Failure Point	git checkout step - git tag verification

Root Cause Analysis 🔍

The expected commit hash for tag 2025.11.2 does not match the actual commit hash found during git checkout. This indicates either the tag was moved/updated in the repository, or the expected commit hash in the build configuration is incorrect. The build system expected commit 503a3228c34cb48495838fb7866b46d1a7a49640 but found 92013cbcc997b8b349ec385c5b1d734f9d9df496 when checking out tag 2025.11.2 from the neo4j repository.

---

🔍 Build failure fix suggestions

Found similar build failures that have been fixed in the past and analyzed them to suggest a fix:

Similar PRs with fixes

• Adding VersionStream for neo4j-2025.08 #65537
• Adding VersionStream for neo4j-2025.03 #49517

Suggested Changes

File: neo4j-2025.11.yaml

• replacement at line 45 (pipeline section, git-checkout step)
  Original:

expected-commit: 503a3228c34cb48495838fb7866b46d1a7a49640

Replacement:

expected-commit: 92013cbcc997b8b349ec385c5b1d734f9d9df496

Content:

Update the expected-commit hash to match the actual commit that tag 2025.11.2 points to

Click to expand fix analysis

Analysis

In all three similar fixes, the core issue was a mismatch between the expected commit hash and the actual commit hash that the git tag points to in the repository. The pattern of fixes shows:

1. Fix Example #0: Updated expected-commit from df678ddd97b5724f0c78321de757d11c1c0afde4 to 04c8ed8d5a6403af38e41b3388ccde1813635a31 for tag 2025.08.0
2. Fix Example Add binutils-2.39 configuration #1: Updated expected-commit from d00cf0ce1a774d94afc0bdf936e5f789006a3fa5 to 064eeaa9cba2f6cb4c0ded778999962a93777d68 for tag 2025.03.0
3. Fix Example Add pax-utils into the OS. #2: Updated expected-commit from f96c75571353037dd3b82d9a9763c9b1785180a9 to 653fe212c625ae00551db6e97a63d19992d6d039 for tag 2025-07-21-001

The consistent solution is to update the expected-commit field in the git-checkout step to match the actual commit hash that the tag references in the upstream repository. This indicates that upstream repositories occasionally move tags or the expected commit hashes become outdated.

Click to expand fix explanation

Explanation

The build failure indicates that when checking out tag 2025.11.2 from the neo4j repository, the actual commit hash (92013cbcc997b8b349ec385c5b1d734f9d9df496) does not match the expected commit hash (503a3228c34cb48495838fb7866b46d1a7a49640) in the configuration. This is a verification mechanism to ensure build reproducibility.

Based on the pattern from all similar fixes, the solution is to update the expected-commit field to the actual commit hash that the tag points to. This ensures that:

1. The git-checkout step will succeed since the expected and actual commits match
2. The build will continue with the correct source code from the intended tag
3. Build reproducibility is maintained since the specific commit is explicitly specified

The error message explicitly provides both the expected and found commit hashes, making it straightforward to apply the fix by replacing the expected-commit value with the found commit hash (92013cbcc997b8b349ec385c5b1d734f9d9df496).

Click to expand alternative approaches

Alternative Approaches

• If the tag was moved incorrectly in the upstream repository, an alternative approach would be to verify with the upstream maintainers if the tag movement was intentional and potentially use a different tag or commit reference
• Another approach could be to remove the expected-commit verification entirely, though this would reduce build reproducibility guarantees
• If this is a temporary issue with the upstream repository, waiting for the upstream to fix the tag could be an option, but this would delay the package build unnecessarily

---

Was this comment helpful? Please use 👍 or 👎 reactions on this comment.