On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Gregory Chanan <[email protected]> wrote: > The tag "(release 1.4.0-rc0/SHA: 5e6e34202b26d7d5bc1a41e3dd4ad0 > cacd123e3f):" seems incorrect. I don't see any tag "release 1.4.0-rc0" and > the SHA doesn't match the tag SHA 73dcf89677b2764d6ad842cca85798d56c4be985. > It seems you are using the sha of the archive rather than the tag, which > is inconsistent at least with how we did the 1.3.0 release (I didn't check > further back than that). > > Besides that, everything looks good: > - The signature checks out > - The checksums are correct > - The archive matches the source tree > > I don't really whether the above should require a new rc or not. I'd argue > not because you linked correctly to the tag and one can find the correct > SHA from the link. Therefore, I'm +1. >
Tags are mutable. Does that cause concern for anyone? --David
