On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Allen Wittenauer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mar 3, 2016, at 8:14 AM, Kengo Seki <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> * I found some "2015"s in LICENSE and NOTICE. Should we update them with >> "2016" before release? > > The one in NOTICE is definitely wrong. The only entries in LICENSE I > see are for copyrights related to 3rd party works which I don’t think have > been updated this year. I’d hate to have to cancel this RC based upon this, > but it’s probably the correct thing to do. :( >
Did we change any of our dependency versions such that we'd have a more recent copyright for them even if they had updated this year? The date range on our notice is def wrong though. If we get a fix in now we could start a 72hr window today and have a release sunday. On the plus side, not a problem we'll hit again for 9 months! ;) >> * I tried "ASF required checks" No.4, but I couldn't find the 0.2.0-RC1 >> branch (does Allen's comment[2] mean it?). > > I'd consider this is a bug in the documentation. The “how to > release” docs create the branch based upon the issue #, doesn't set a > temporary tag either, and only shares the git commit hash. The paragraph > before step 4 says: > > "You SHOULD make sure the source release artifact corresponds to the > referenced commit hash in the [VOTE] thread. […] Our eventual release tag is > how we’ll provide long term provinence information for our downstream users.” > > It acknowledges that we’ll eventually have a release tag, but we > don’t yet. So I think the branch checkout should probably be replaced with a > hash checkout. Yeah, sounds like a docs bug. Git tags are mutable, so I prefer not referencing them in the RC and just sticking with a commit hash.
