Ok - i've added instructions to the release guide to create a proper signed release tag. Will do starting with 0.4.0.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1100 Thanks Joe On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
