You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@nifi.apache.org by Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com> on 2015/11/03 10:49:37 UTC
Re: Source code for Version 0.3.0
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>.
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