Great! If we're good with the latest versions of NOTICE and LICENSE files, we're about done with the src artifacts ready for review by ASF elders.
The next step is code-signing and needs a few committers to have their PGP signatures uploaded on a public key server [1]. More details on release signing here [2], [3]. Is anyone from Geode PMC already in the 'web of trust'? I do see Roman on the list. - Nitin [1] https://people.apache.org/committers.html [2] http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing.html#link-into-wot [3] http://www.apache.org/dev/openpgp.html#wot ________________________________________ From: Anthony Baker <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 2:50 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: releaseType? Cool! What’s the next step? Anthony > On Jan 11, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Nitin Lamba <[email protected]> wrote: > > JIRA update is done! > > I've also updated the wiki page [1] > > Thanks, > Nitin > [1] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/1.0.0-incubating.M1+%28First%29+Release > ________________________________________ > From: Anthony Baker <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 2:19 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: releaseType? > > Done! I pushed a new release branch to avoid confusion and set the build > version as 1.0.0-incubating.M1. The branch is release/1.0.0-incubating.M1. > I used the same commit for the base revision > (a097fcf32cb20f2258637b1e1f6829c632a89e46). > > Can someone with JIRA privs rename the 1.0.0-alpha1 version to > 1.0.0-incubating.M1? > > Anthony > > >> On Jan 11, 2016, at 11:59 AM, Nitin Lamba <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> This should be trivial to update within JIRA. >> >> Anthony: if we have consensus, can you please update the tag within git to >> match? >> >> Thanks, >> Nitin >> ________________________________________ >> From: Mark Bretl <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 11:16 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: releaseType? >> >> +1 >> >> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Jens Deppe <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:08 AM, John Blum <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Anthony Baker <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sounds like the consensus is to use the Spring conventions (note that >>> we >>>>> can always change later…most projects I surveyed have evolved their >>>> release >>>>> naming over time). Shall we also adopt Swapnil’s suggestion to change >>>> from >>>>> alpha1 to M1? That is: >>>>> >>>>> 1.0.0-incubating.M1 >>>>> >>>>> Anthony >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 8, 2016, at 7:36 PM, Niall Pemberton < >>> [email protected] >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 3:06 AM, Roman Shaposhnik < >>> [email protected] >>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Note, that in ASF the RCs are NOT published into public Maven >>>>>>> repo and are generally not disclosed ouside of the dev. community. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think in this discussion the proposal is to use "RC" in the version >>>> of >>>>> an >>>>>> official ASF release (e.g. "1.0.0-RC1") - if thats the case it >>>>> could/would >>>>>> be published to the public Maven repo and advertised outside the dev >>>>>> community. >>>>>> >>>>>> Niall >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Roman. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:48 AM, John Blum <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>>>>>> For clarification, the "RELEASE" version qualifier is only used for >>>> the >>>>>>>> final GA (production-grade release), not any other version. So, by >>>> way >>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> example, (using Spring Data GemFire >>>>>>>> <https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-data-gemfire/releases> >>>> [0]) >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> release series will progress as follows... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1.7.0.M1 >>>>>>>> 1.7.0.RC1 >>>>>>>> 1.7.0.RELEASE >>>>>>>> 1.7.1.RELEASE >>>>>>>> 1.7.2.RELEASE >>>>>>>> 1.8.0.M1 >>>>>>>> 1.8.0.RC1 >>>>>>>> 1.8.0.RELEASE >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There can be any number of milestone and release candidates in >>>> between. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> With Spring, rather than having alpha, beta, etc type releases, we >>>> just >>>>>>> use >>>>>>>> milestones (which implies things are changing... feature additions, >>>>>>>> enhancements, bug fixes, etc) while release candidates indicate >>>>> hardening >>>>>>>> of the release version (mainly bug fixes, perhaps minor >>> enhancements >>>>> that >>>>>>>> won't destabalize the build) and final RELEASE of course, >>> indicates, >>>> it >>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> ready for production. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hope this helps. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -John >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [0] - >>>> https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-data-gemfire/releases >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Anthony Baker <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As a starting point for discussion, I’ve set the version on the >>>>>>>>> release/1.0.0-incubating-alpha1 branch to: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1.0.0-incubating-alpha1 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is there a preference to follow the Spring convention as John is >>>>>>>>> suggesting? Are there many / any ASF projects following that >>>>>>> convention?. >>>>>>>>> Here’ s what that version string would look like: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1.0.0-incubating-alpha1.RELEASE >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I do think we should remove the -SNAPSHOT from the version on the >>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>> branch so that we can validate the exact bits that we will >>> publish. >>>>>>> Also, >>>>>>>>> I don’t see a need to do M? or RC? releases before this initial >>>>> release. >>>>>>>>> IMHO of course... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Anthony >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jan 8, 2016, at 9:44 AM, John Blum <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In Spring, the releaseType (qualifier) is always (BUILD-)SNAPSHOT >>>>>>> unless >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> is a release (M1, M2, ..., RC1, ... RELEASE (GA)). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When a particular version ends, for instance when 1.0.0.RELASE >>> goes >>>>>>> GA, >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> version/releaseType switches to 1.1.0.(BUILD-)SNAPSHOT and a >>> 1.0.x >>>>>>> branch >>>>>>>>>> is created to "service" the old version (with subsequent releases >>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>>> 1.0.1.RELEASE, 1.0.2.RELEASE, etc; the 1.0.x development branch >>>> will >>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> then have subsequent versions of 1.0.3.(BUILD-)SNAPSHOT), but >>>> remain >>>>>>>>> with a >>>>>>>>>> releaseType of (BUILD-)SNAPSHOT). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Make sense? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 8:26 AM, William Markito < >>>> [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think we can keep it snapshot until it actually becomes a >>> final >>>>>>>>>>> release... Ideally it would go - *SNAPSHOT -> BETA, RC, >>> RC2.... - >>>>>>>>>>> Release* - >>>>>>>>>>> but by keeping it snapshots until the "final" release will >>>> probably >>>>>>> easy >>>>>>>>>>> the process, unless ASF requires otherwise. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> By the way, I'm looking into this - >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/researchgate/gradle-release and not sure we >>>>>>> already >>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>> that in our scripts. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Anthony Baker < >>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I was looking in our gradle.properties file: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> versionNumber = 1.0.0-incubating >>>>>>>>>>>> releaseType = SNAPSHOT >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I’m not sure what the releaseType should be for a non-SNAPSHOT >>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>> :-) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Given that version is set to: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> version = versionNumber + '-' + releaseType >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if we should just simplify this and set the >>> version >>>>>>>>>>> directly >>>>>>>>>>>> in the properties file. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Anthony >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> William Markito Oliveira >>>>>>>>>>> -- For questions about Apache Geode, please write to >>>>>>>>>>> *[email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]>* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> -John >>>>>>>>>> 503-504-8657 >>>>>>>>>> john.blum10101 (skype) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> -John >>>>>>>> 503-504-8657 >>>>>>>> john.blum10101 (skype) >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -John >>>> 503-504-8657 >>>> john.blum10101 (skype) >>>> >>>
