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 09:49:37 GMT
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