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 <joe.w...@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 <b...@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 <a...@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. >
