David, The SHA and the tag name in the email was wrong but the tag link and everything else is right. And looks like Tuong also corrected the email content with the following. So I think it is completely fine?
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 9:11 AM, David Nalley <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Gregory Chanan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > The tag "(release 1.4.0-rc0/SHA: 5e6e34202b26d7d5bc1a41e3dd4ad0 > > cacd123e3f):" > The correct tag: release-1.4.0 /SHA should be: 73dcf89677b2764d6ad842cca85798d56c4be985 > 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 > -- Sravya Tirukkovalur
