fix: don't split image build by target platform

[pfandzelter]

As discussed in #443, 7c1554f introduced parallelized image builds across bake targets and platforms (previously it was just by bake targets). This introduced an error where multiple image for the same target (i.e., tag) but with different platforms were built and pushed concurrently and only the final push remained on Docker Hub/GHCR, so each tag had only one platform available.

Fixing this in the current setup would require pushing individual digests first and then tagging them at the end by manually building a manifest, as docker/github-builder does. This is likely difficult to support as it is complex and requires duplicating image names to the GitHub CI setup.

I tried setting up the docker/github-builder action for this repository but it conflicts with the extensive tag setup in the Bakefile (the action requires meta-images for each additional tag).

I thus simply reverted the changes to .github/workflows/publish.yml (.github/workflows/verifyimage.yml works correctly as far as I can see from this job). Unfortunately the CI pipeline is now much slower (as it was before 7c1554f) because of cross-platform builds and no parallelization.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@pfandzelter, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 57 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 0f254763-ee85-4829-8e9d-6a6f7d3bfd59

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between b015e92 and 9660b45.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• .github/workflows/publish.yml

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[fzipi]

This is on me, need to sign the release. Give me a sec.

[fzipi]

Thanks for tracking this down and for the writeup on the digest+merge alternative you considered — that's exactly the direction I went in #447.

Instead of using docker/github-builder's bake.yml (which needs meta-images/meta-tags to drive tagging via docker/metadata-action), #447 keeps docker-bake.hcl untouched and reuses its already-resolved tags output directly (docker buildx bake --print, captured once in prepare and shared via artifact so the embedded timestamp doesn't diverge across jobs). Each per-platform job pushes by digest only, and a new merge job runs docker buildx imagetools create per target to assemble the manifest and push to both registries.

This keeps the native-ARM-runner speedup from 7c1554f instead of giving it up. I validated the digest-push + cross-registry imagetools create mechanics locally against two throwaway registries before opening it — details in the PR description. Leaving this open for you/@fzipi to compare against #447 and decide which one to merge.

[fzipi]

@pfandzelter Can you check if the latest release works for you? My tests say it is fixed.