You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@nifi.apache.org by Adam Taft <ad...@adamtaft.com> on 2015/10/02 14:48:09 UTC
Re: Source code for Version 0.3.0
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 <jo...@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 <bl...@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 <ad...@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.
>
Re: Source code for Version 0.3.0
Posted by Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com>.
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 <jo...@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 <db...@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 <bu...@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 <ad...@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 <jo...@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 <bl...@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 <ad...@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
Re: Source code for Version 0.3.0
Posted by Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com>.
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 <db...@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 <bu...@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 <ad...@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 <jo...@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 <bl...@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 <ad...@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
Re: Source code for Version 0.3.0
Posted by Dan Bress <db...@onyxconsults.com>.
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 <bu...@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 <ad...@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 <jo...@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 <bl...@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 <ad...@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
Re: Source code for Version 0.3.0
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.
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 <ad...@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 <jo...@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 <bl...@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 <ad...@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