nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Source code for Version 0.3.0
Date Tue, 03 Nov 2015 10:56:33 GMT
Ok - i've added instructions to the release guide to create a proper
signed release tag.  Will do starting with 0.4.0.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1100

Thanks
Joe

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Joe Witt <joe.witt@gmail.com> wrote:
> Folks - so i'm not super 'keen' (am in london so i really wanted to
> say that) on going back and signing the release tags.  But this seems
> like a prudent step.  I'll take a look at this as part of the RM gig
> for the upcoming 0.4.0 release.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Dan Bress <dbress@onyxconsults.com> wrote:
>> I think a tag for each release signed by the person who originally released it would
make the most sense to anyone looking at our codebase.
>>
>> Dan Bress
>> Software Engineer
>> ONYX Consulting Services
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com>
>> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 11:35 AM
>> To: dev@nifi.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Source code for Version 0.3.0
>>
>> If we're going with tags, I'd love one for each previous release.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Adam Taft <adam@adamtaft.com> wrote:
>>> Just bumping this conversation.  Did we end up addressing this?  Are we
>>> going for a signed release tag?  If so, does it make sense for the 0.3.0
>>> tag to be signed by the releasor (I believe Matt Gilman)?  Or maybe just an
>>> unsigned tag?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Joe Witt <joe.witt@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Looks fairly straightforward to sign a release [1].
>>>>
>>>> What is the workflow you'd suggest?  Can we keep our current process
>>>> and once the vote is done just add a step to make a new identical (but
>>>> signed) tag with a name that doesn't include '-RC#'?
>>>>
>>>> I'm good with that.  I understand why the RC# throws folks off so
>>>> happy to sort this out.
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://gitready.com/advanced/2014/11/02/gpg-sign-releases.html
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Ryan Blue <blue@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>>> > +1 for a nifi-0.3.0 release tag. Signed is even better, but I don't
think
>>>> > I'd mind if it weren't signed.
>>>> >
>>>> > rb
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On 09/21/2015 06:35 AM, Sean Busbey wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The pattern I've liked the most on other projects is to create a
>>>> >> proper release tag, signed by the RM on passage of the release vote.
I
>>>> >> don't recall off-hand what the phrasing was in the VOTE thread (if
>>>> >> any).
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Adam Taft <adam@adamtaft.com>
wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> What's the thoughts on creating a proper 0.3.0 tag, as would
be
>>>> >>> traditional
>>>> >>> for a final release?  It is arguably a little confusing to only
have
>>>> the
>>>> >>> RC
>>>> >>> tags, when looking for the final release.  I found this head
scratching
>>>> >>> for
>>>> >>> 0.2.0 as well.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Adam
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Ryan Blue
>>>> > Software Engineer
>>>> > Cloudera, Inc.
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sean

Mime
View raw message