I agree to only release tar.gz, thanks for the reminder ~ Stamatis Zampetakis <zabe...@gmail.com>于2020年2月29日 周六下午11:25写道：
> In the last release of avatica we didn't release two archives in the end > (but only the .tar.gz) [1]. > Before that for a quite some time we were releasing only the tar.gz > archive. > I would suggest to do the same for this, and the following Calcite > releases, until we reach some consensus around the problem of line endings > [2, 3]. > > Best, > Stamatis > > [1] > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/18911eed28dc11f7c21679f244b66426822961406cf3fa4ab9834fbb%40%3Cdev.calcite.apache.org%3E > [2] > > https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@calcite.apache.org:lte=1M:%5BVOTE%5D%20Release%20apache-avatica > [3] > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/87f2973a1e78237cc001df360a837c1b170342aa6d84a2d2c482f867%40%3Cdev.calcite.apache.org%3E > > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 9:51 AM Vladimir Sitnikov < > sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Danny, thanks for putting things together, however, I guess the vote mail > > requires clarifications before the votes can be cast :-/ > > > > Danny>The hashes of the artifacts are as follows: > > > > dist.apache.org contains two archives, however, the vote mail lists just > > one of them. > > We had the very same case with 1.21.0 vote: > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ebfdfc6d3ac0f81801d805dec014f10507ee9cd7af63cac2999aeb19%40%3Cdev.calcite.apache.org%3E > > > > Danny, can you please double-check all the release artifact checksums you > > are going to release via dist.apache.org? > > > > > > Danny>Release artifacts are signed with the following key: > > Danny>https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/danny0405.asc > > > > Is this key on the ASF web of trust? > > I'm not sure that is a hard requirement for release signing, but I guess > > historically we used the keys that were cross-signed by other > > PMC/committers. > > > > Danny>You can read the release notes here: > > Danny> > > > https://github.com/apache/calcite/blob/calcite-1.22.0/site/_docs/history.md > > > > Did you create calcite-1.22.0 tag manually? > > I thought the build script should have created calcite-1.22.0-rc2, > > however, I do not see it. > > > > It looks sad to have the very same link > /calcite/blob/calcite-1.22.0/site/ > > in different mails :-/ > > Then, it is not clear how to compare what has changed between the release > > candidates. > > > > The naming of calcite-1.22.0 tag is confusing: it can easily be confused > > with a true release tag (see > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ra2bfc17c52d80250ed9848a1977ac23807282ab4c1c1b643625b36a8%40%3Cdev.calcite.apache.org%3E > > ) > > > > Do we really need a release branch? Why can't we build candidates out of > > the master? > > I guess if we had calcite-1.22.0-rc0, -rc1, and so on tags right in the > > master branch, then everybody would see there's a release pending. > > > > Vladimir > > >
