Can you post this over on the tagging thread? :) On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Robert Newson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes, quite reasonable. > > My take on tagging was to follow what we did with SVN with only minor > changes to account for git. So I shall describe it. > > First, I create a signed tag for the release, with its intended final > release value. In this case, exactly the string '1.1.1'. Then I build > artifacts from the tag (which could be from a 'git archive 1.1.1' or > 'git checkout 1.1.1 && git clean -xdfq'). When I'm happy with the > output of that phase (i.e, I've done the diff -r, make check, Futon, > etc from the generated tar.gz) I upload it to people.apache.org and > push the tag (so that others can verify that it matches the release > artifact). > > In the event of a round veto, I delete the 1.1.1 tag. In the next > round, I create and push a new signed 1.1.1 tag as part of the same > procedure. > > 'git pull --tags' correctly updates anyone's existing (but now wrong) > 1.1.1 tag (the man page for git-tag goes on at some length that it > doesn't do that and how evil such a thing would be, but it does it > anyway). > > The arguments in the other thread about immutable tags are laudable > but irrelevant. The tags in our source control system are not the > source of truth for our releases. The presence of the release on the > Apache mirrors is. The entire discussion around -rcX suffixes is to > avoid any confusion between the failed artifacts and the release > artifact. While a genuine concern, it's not worth all this soul > searching in my opinion. The real 1.1.1 comes from the mirrors. When > it's available on our mirrors then it also means that the 1.1.1 tag in > source control points to it (and always will). > > B. > > On 21 October 2011 18:56, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Robert Newson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > >> nslater: Can we decide now if we're sticking with (approximately) the > >> release procedure we've been following so far or whether we have to > >> nail down all the git things and document before round 3 can begin? > >> > > > > The actual text of the release procedure wiki page is unimportant. I > realise > > we want to get this out ASAP, and I don't want to be a PITA. But we DO > need > > to nail down how we're tagging releases. As long as we get that far, and > as > > along as round three is tagged according to that policy, and as long as > we > > write it down afterwards, I think I will be a happy bunny. Am I being > > reasonable? > > >
