Folks - so i'm not super 'keen' (am in london so i really wanted to say that) on going back and signing the release tags. But this seems like a prudent step. I'll take a look at this as part of the RM gig for the upcoming 0.4.0 release.
Thanks Joe On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Dan Bress <dbr...@onyxconsults.com> wrote: > I think a tag for each release signed by the person who originally released > it would make the most sense to anyone looking at our codebase. > > Dan Bress > Software Engineer > ONYX Consulting Services > > ________________________________________ > From: Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com> > Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 11:35 AM > To: dev@nifi.apache.org > Subject: Re: Source code for Version 0.3.0 > > If we're going with tags, I'd love one for each previous release. > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Adam Taft <a...@adamtaft.com> wrote: >> 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. >>> > > > > -- > Sean
