Binaries in git, release numbering, Git-Flow and Scrum at the CIA

Funny how even the software developers at the CIA have problems with idiots who want to put binaries in git. They also know about Git-Flow, my preferred git branching workflow. I kind of wonder how come, if they know about Git-Flow, we see so few leaked NSA and CIA tools with correct semver versioning. Sometimes it’s somewhat okayish, like you can see here. But v1.0-RC3 is not really semver if you see how they got there¬†here. To start with, your alpha versions start with 0.0.x. So where are all those versions under 0.0.x that happened before release candidate 3?¬†1.0, 1.1-beta, 1.0-phase2, 1.0-beta1-, 1.0-beta-7. WTF guys. That’s not a good versioning scheme. Just call it 0.0.1, 0.0.2, 0.1.0, 0.1.1, 0.1.2 for the betas. And when the thing sees first usage, start calling it 1.0.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.2, 1.1.0, 1.1.1, 1.2.0 etc. What’s wrong with that? And how are all these words like alha-1, beta-2, phase2, etc any better? Maybe just fire your release maintainer! Admittedly for that 2.0.x series they at least tried to get it right.

The point is that packaging tools can be configured to let other packages depend on these version numbers. In x.y.z the x number has implications on API incompatibility whereas the y number can be used for compatible feature additions.

I can imagine that different malwares, exploits, rootkits, intrusion tools they develop would pose incompatibilities with each other, and that for example the NSA and CIA want to share libraries and link without having to recompile or repackage. So versioning to indicate ABI and API compatibility wouldn’t be a bad idea. Let’s hope in the next round of massive leaks we see them having learned good software development processes and practices.

They are doing Scrum sprints and do retrospectives, though. That’s not so bad.