Re: Source code for Version 0.3.0

[Joe Witt]

Folks - so i'm not super 'keen' (am in london so i really wanted to
say that) on going back and signing the release tags.  But this seems
like a prudent step.  I'll take a look at this as part of the RM gig
for the upcoming 0.4.0 release.

Thanks
Joe

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Dan Bress <dbr...@onyxconsults.com> wrote:
> I think a tag for each release signed by the person who originally released 
> it would make the most sense to anyone looking at our codebase.
>
> Dan Bress
> Software Engineer
> ONYX Consulting Services
>
> 
> From: Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 11:35 AM
> To: dev@nifi.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Source code for Version 0.3.0
>
> If we're going with tags, I'd love one for each previous release.
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Adam Taft <a...@adamtaft.com> wrote:
>> Just bumping this conversation.  Did we end up addressing this?  Are we
>> going for a signed release tag?  If so, does it make sense for the 0.3.0
>> tag to be signed by the releasor (I believe Matt Gilman)?  Or maybe just an
>> unsigned tag?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Looks fairly straightforward to sign a release [1].
>>>
>>> What is the workflow you'd suggest?  Can we keep our current process
>>> and once the vote is done just add a step to make a new identical (but
>>> signed) tag with a name that doesn't include '-RC#'?
>>>
>>> I'm good with that.  I understand why the RC# throws folks off so
>>> happy to sort this out.
>>>
>>> [1] http://gitready.com/advanced/2014/11/02/gpg-sign-releases.html
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Ryan Blue <b...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>> > +1 for a nifi-0.3.0 release tag. Signed is even better, but I don't think
>>> > I'd mind if it weren't signed.
>>> >
>>> > rb
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 09/21/2015 06:35 AM, Sean Busbey wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> The pattern I've liked the most on other projects is to create a
>>> >> proper release tag, signed by the RM on passage of the release vote. I
>>> >> don't recall off-hand what the phrasing was in the VOTE thread (if
>>> >> any).
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Adam Taft <a...@adamtaft.com> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> What's the thoughts on creating a proper 0.3.0 tag, as would be
>>> >>> traditional
>>> >>> for a final release?  It is arguably a little confusing to only have
>>> the
>>> >>> RC
>>> >>> tags, when looking for the final release.  I found this head scratching
>>> >>> for
>>> >>> 0.2.0 as well.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Adam
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Ryan Blue
>>> > Software Engineer
>>> > Cloudera, Inc.
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> Sean

Re: Source code for Version 0.3.0

[Adam Taft]

Just bumping this conversation.  Did we end up addressing this?  Are we
going for a signed release tag?  If so, does it make sense for the 0.3.0
tag to be signed by the releasor (I believe Matt Gilman)?  Or maybe just an
unsigned tag?

Thanks,

Adam


On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Joe Witt  wrote:

> Looks fairly straightforward to sign a release [1].
>
> What is the workflow you'd suggest?  Can we keep our current process
> and once the vote is done just add a step to make a new identical (but
> signed) tag with a name that doesn't include '-RC#'?
>
> I'm good with that.  I understand why the RC# throws folks off so
> happy to sort this out.
>
> [1] http://gitready.com/advanced/2014/11/02/gpg-sign-releases.html
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Ryan Blue  wrote:
> > +1 for a nifi-0.3.0 release tag. Signed is even better, but I don't think
> > I'd mind if it weren't signed.
> >
> > rb
> >
> >
> > On 09/21/2015 06:35 AM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> >>
> >> The pattern I've liked the most on other projects is to create a
> >> proper release tag, signed by the RM on passage of the release vote. I
> >> don't recall off-hand what the phrasing was in the VOTE thread (if
> >> any).
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Adam Taft  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> What's the thoughts on creating a proper 0.3.0 tag, as would be
> >>> traditional
> >>> for a final release?  It is arguably a little confusing to only have
> the
> >>> RC
> >>> tags, when looking for the final release.  I found this head scratching
> >>> for
> >>> 0.2.0 as well.
> >>>
> >>> Adam
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ryan Blue
> > Software Engineer
> > Cloudera, Inc.
>

Re: Source code for Version 0.3.0

[Joe Witt]

Esteban

The tag you mention is the correct tag for the 0.3.0 source.

Thanks
Joe
On Sep 21, 2015 4:43 AM, "Esteban Aliverti" 
wrote:

> Hi there,
> I want to give v. 0.3.0 a try and I would like to know where the source
> code for that version is.
> Right now, master has 0.3.1-SNAPSHOT version. I noticed there is a
> nifi-0.3.0-RC1
> <
> https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=nifi.git;a=commit;h=2ec735e35025fed3c63d51128ec0609ffe1fa7e3
> >
> tag
> that has 0.3.0 version in its poms. Should I use 0.3.0-RC1 then? Is this
> branch already frozen? It will be any other branch for 0.3.0 final?
>
> Regards,
>
> 
>
> Esteban Aliverti
> - Blog @ http://ilesteban.wordpress.com
>

Source code for Version 0.3.0

[Esteban Aliverti]

Hi there,
I want to give v. 0.3.0 a try and I would like to know where the source
code for that version is.
Right now, master has 0.3.1-SNAPSHOT version. I noticed there is a
nifi-0.3.0-RC1

tag
that has 0.3.0 version in its poms. Should I use 0.3.0-RC1 then? Is this
branch already frozen? It will be any other branch for 0.3.0 final?

Regards,



Esteban Aliverti
- Blog @ http://ilesteban.wordpress.com