Relases and versions - for downstream packaging?

[Torxed]

Hi.

Saw a video from this project, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3E-sWo2H_M — which talks about a release.
However, I cannot find any releases in the traditional sense other than a static latest-stable which was created 2022, but is updated/deleted/renewed (whatever you want to call it) every now and then?

This makes for a weird versioning and packaging scenario. I'm a package maintain for a Linux distribution, and I was curious about packaging this application — but it's hard when there's not a proper release with release artifacts that we can verify against.

Would it at all be possible, to create a proper github release for new releases, which would create release artifacts (.tar.gz) of the tagged commit, as well as a maintainer of Graphite to sign said release artifact?

This would help us tremendously in our work of verifying that releases come from those who say they release the software, as well as a known state (other than a commit hash).

[Keavon]

Hi, this is great question.

While in alpha, Graphite does not use any sort of versioning scheme, but the Help > About Graphite menu shows the build's commit hash (which is also stamped into saved documents). The release at https://editor.graphite.art uses a rolling release, dubbed latest-stable for GitHub tagging purposes. This has helped us stay nimble and avoid overhead during the alpha phase of development, but we're nearing the end of the era when that has been the most pragmatic option as things reach maturity.

Outside the web platform, there are currently no desktop releases yet. We're still in release candidate stage (RC5 is the latest build) while preparing for the first release. These RC versions are pre-release community testing builds, not releases. When the first desktop release is ready to launch in the upcoming few weeks-to-months time frame, that will be the end of alpha and start of beta, and that first release will be given the version 1.0 which will count upwards from then on every few months, roughly similar to Blender's modern versioning scheme. It will also have a tagged GitHub release for each version (1.0, 1.1, 1.2, ..., 2.0, etc.).

You didn't mention in your post but from your profile it looks like the distro you're referring to is Arch, which is definitely one of the places we'd like to ship during the 1.0 launch on day 1 so our announcement post and download page can link directly to an Arch package (instead of saying "coming soon"). So this is a good time to be putting things in order as we prepare for the release and we'd love to work with you to set that up ahead of the 1.0 launch.

There is currently this AUR package that follows the Git HEAD commit, maintained by @alerque. See this thread for a bit of context about that. And on the NixOS side of things, our team member @timon-schelling maintains the graphite package which we already have integrated with our CI/CD system. Our goal is to also set up CI/CD with our releases to Steam, the Windows Store, Mac App Store, and as many major Linux distro stores/package managers as we have the resources (and ideally assistance from members of those ecosystems), to ensure we can publish stable builds in a consistent and uniform way to each target without undue delays between Graphite version releases and downstream availability. It happens that Timon was already a package maintainer for NixOS before he joined our project to build our desktop app, but for other distros we'd like to collaborate in setting up the relevant processes. The pre-relase NixOS builds (currently 0-unstable-2026-05-25) are sort of acting as our prototype/pathfinder for this, and it'll become 1.0 as soon as the launch is ready. Does Arch have a similar prerelease kind of version we could collaborate on with you in setting up something similar to the Nix one? We'd still have to work based on date or commit hash until we can commit to the 1.0+ versioning scheme (we are too near the release to justify committing to a pre-1.0 numbering scheme), though.

We'd love to discuss further, thanks for stopping by!

[alerque]

Hey @Torxed. As mentioned in the discussion linked above I already plan to make official packaging for this as soon as there are stable releases. Until then I've been maintaining a VCS package, but it's a pretty frustrating process because the upstream is frequently broken so many build problems are ephemeral and it is in a buildable stare probably less than half the time. At this moment I have some simplifications to the PKGBUILD but I can't verify them because the ongoing snafu with the license manager (broken last month, fixed, now broken again).

I'd be happy to collaborate on the VCS packaging for now with the intention of making it as close to what will be required for the stable packaging as possible, then when there is a tagged release to work with it should be relatively simple to adapt it with the pinning.

@Keavon no there is not a system for "prepackaging" things. If there were actual RC tags we could spin up the recipes and do local test builds, but we probably wouldn't be releasing anything to repositories until there is a tag. If the packaging process doesn't change significantly we should be in good shape to adapt the VCS packaging to stable official builds, but the sequence here is that you first need to release tags then we work on building them. That might be minutes or hours or days or weeks. You can hold off announcing a tag, but distro packaging is fundamentally a step after your upstream release process, not a linked simultaneous event.