+1
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Bill Farner <b...@twitter.com> wrote: > This sounds good to me. > > -=Bill > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Kevin Sweeney <kevi...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Hey all, >> >> I think figuring out the tagging process sooner than later is in >> everyone's best interest so that we can get out of cherry-pick limbo. I'm >> out next week, but if anyone wants to take a stab at it (using >> https://reviews.apache.org/r/16265/ as a starting point or just throw it >> away, please feel free). My thinking: >> >> .auroraversion on master only ever contains -SNAPSHOT versions. This >> makes it harder for someone to reset and accidentally creating bogus >> non-SNAPSHOT artifacts. >> >> At each tag there are 2 commits. One on an anonymous branch that does >> s/-SNAPSHOT// and one on master that increments the MINOR portion of the >> version. So if master is 0.2.0-SNAPSHOT this new branch will have 0.2.0. >> For that commit we create an annotated (preferably PGP-signed) tag, 0.2.0. >> The other commit on master changes .auroraversion to 0.3.0-SNAPSHOT. >> >> Once everything is verified we'll push 2 things - the new master and the >> tag (so origin will not have a name for the branch the tag was created on). >> >> What does everyone think of this process? >> -- >> Kevin Sweeney >> @kts >> > >
