-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Based on Kevan's input, we'll go with options 2 and 3 - a tag to make it easy to see what the RC was based off of, and an actual RC artifact that people can vote on.
I'll go ahead and add that to the "Cutting a VCL Release" and then start on the process outlined on that page. I can go ahead and sign it with my key, but I still need to get my key into the ASF WOT somehow. Josh On Monday September 21, 2009, Kevan Miller wrote: > On Sep 18, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Josh Thompson wrote: > > (2) pros - not as easy as #1, but still pretty easy > > - if a vote fails, just create another tag > > cons - same cons as #1, plus: > > - could result in many tags that could make subversion a > > little > > cluttered > > A tag is best, IMO. > > If a vote fails, then you can always delete the corresponding > directory in tags/ (this reduces the apparent clutter). And then spin > a new release candidate for a new vote. Then a question of whether or > not your tags have unique names (e.g. 0.5-RC1, 0.5-RC2, etc or just > 0.5 w/ corresponding revision #). I've seen communities use either > approach. Personally, I prefer simple name (e.g. 0.5 and note the > revision number in the release). > > My current understanding is that: technically, a release vote is not > on the code that is in SVN. Instead the vote is on the source archive > that the release manager has created (which has been digitally > signed). Expectation is that the source archive matches the tag code > (and this should be verified during release vote). > > --kevan - -- - ------------------------------- Josh Thompson Systems Programmer Advanced Computing | VCL Developer North Carolina State University josh_thomp...@ncsu.edu 919-515-5323 my GPG/PGP key can be found at pgp.mit.edu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFKuPiEV/LQcNdtPQMRAvSlAJ98hBqVT+E4z+0eKiCumqDkY9nLIACdFqI/ aZn40Z4aBhEgHeyJuI6vsr8= =3UwY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
