Hi Jens,

I see that git tag v0.14.1 is already created based on the current 0.14.1
branch. Should we tag it as v0.14.1-rc0 instead? I know the chance of
rejecting this rc is not very high, but there's still a (small) chance we
would reject this rc (or want to add more changes in 0.14.1 release),
causing us to retag v0.14.1.

On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 1:35 PM Jens Geyer <[email protected]> wrote:

> All,
>
> I propose that we accept the following release candidate as the official
> Apache Thrift 0.14.1 release:
>
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/thrift/0.14.1-rc0/thrift-0.14.1.tar.gz
>
> The release candidate was created from the 0.14.1 branch and can be cloned
> using:
>
> git clone -b 0.14.1 https://github.com/apache/thrift.git
>
> The release candidates GPG signature can be found at:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/thrift/0.14.1-rc0/thrift-0.14.1.tar.gz.asc
>
> The release candidates checksums are:
> md5: c64434548438df2cb1e53fb27c600e85
> sha1: 7b322742610ef6c9f15e22101862163b72a7efe7
> sha256: 13da5e1cd9c8a3bb89778c0337cc57eb0c29b08f3090b41cf6ab78594b410ca5
>
>
> A prebuilt Windows compiler is available at:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/thrift/0.14.1-rc0/thrift-0.14.1.exe
>
> Prebuilt Windows compiler GPG signature:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/thrift/0.14.1-rc0/thrift-0.14.1.exe.asc
>
> Prebuilt Windows compiler checksums are:
> md5: adda033e9a721e13215e13994ca0d5bd
> sha1: 1080b396ad3e8ce5aafffb26664ccf7fa6ca1b52
> sha256: 2529e9e8dfe0c6bfaeb8f618705e5ea6703b56acbd7566ea7a1e75521b24dfff
>
>
>
> The CHANGES list for this release is available at:
> https://github.com/apache/thrift/blob/0.14.1/CHANGES.md
>
>
> Please download, verify sig/sum, install and test the libraries and
> languages of your choice.
>
> This vote will close in 72 hours on Mon, 2021-03-08 00:00 UTC
> https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?iso=20210308T0000&p0=1440
>
> [ ] +1 Release this as Apache Thrift 0.14.1
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1 Do not release this as Apache Thrift 0.14.1 because...
>
> Best,
> JensG
>

Reply via email to