Hi Attila, Thanks a lot for the update. Will verify the rc0 artifacts.
Tsz-Wo On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 4:12 PM Attila Doroszlai <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Tsz-Wo for checking rc0 and reporting these issues. > > > - The link https://github.com/apache/ratis/tree/ratis-2.3.0-rc0 points > to > > the commit id a37571aca4ed4bae8f3aebe696c806a2d54511ea but not > > 87c54d0dbb256434e9829307017e945a28bef887. > > You are right. > > 87c54d0dbb256434e9829307017e945a28bef887 is the hash of the > ratis-2.3.0-rc0 tag itself, which points to commit > a37571aca4ed4bae8f3aebe696c806a2d54511ea. > > Sorry about that. > > > - There is a warning "This commit does not belong to any branch on this > > repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository." The > > commit a37571a seems not yet pushed to Apache. We usually push the rc > to a > > branch named with the version, i.e. 2.3.0 in this case. > > For the record, the same applies to some previous releases: > - https://github.com/apache/ratis/tree/ratis-2.2.0 > - https://github.com/apache/ratis/tree/ratis-2.2.0-rc0 > - https://github.com/apache/ratis/tree/ratis-2.1.0 > - https://github.com/apache/ratis/tree/ratis-2.1.0-rc1 > - https://github.com/apache/ratis/tree/ratis-2.1.0-rc0 > > I have pushed the branch release-2.3.0 now. > > > I think we need to roll rc1. > > IMO neither of these problems require rolling rc1, since the content > of the release artifacts (tarballs and signatures) are not affected. > > -Attila >
