Yes, this version is still M1. This is for public key server, not the artifacts per se. We're just going through the motions of a release.
My interpretation is that all release artifacts need to be signed irrespective of maven 'publication'. If an 'M1' will go through approvals/ votes, doesn't it need a signature? - Nitin ________________________________________ From: Gregory Chase <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 7:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: releaseType? Just to be clear, is this next version an "M1", which Neil suggested would not be published to a public Maven, or an "RC1" which would be published to a public Maven? On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Nitin Lamba <[email protected]> wrote: > 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) > >>>> > >>> > -- Greg Chase Director of Big Data Communities http://www.pivotal.io/big-data Pivotal Software http://www.pivotal.io/ 650-215-0477 @GregChase Blog: http://geekmarketing.biz/
