+1 to simplifying release processes, since it leads to a more consistent
experience.

If we continue to reduce release overhead we'll be able to react with more
agility when CVEs come a knocking.

On Wed, May 3, 2023, 12:08 PM Jack McCluskey via dev <dev@beam.apache.org>
wrote:

> +1 to automating release signing. As it stands now, this step requires a
> PMC member to add a new release manager's GPG key which can add time to
> getting a release started. This also results in the public key used to sign
> each release changing from one version to the next, as different release
> managers have different keys. Making releases easier to perform and
> providing a standard signing key for each release both seem like wins here.
>
> On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 2:40 PM Danny McCormick via dev <
> dev@beam.apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hey everyone, I'm currently working on improving our release process so
>> that it's easier and faster for us to release. As part of this work, I'd
>> like to propose automating our release signing step (the push java
>> artifacts step of build_release_candidate.sh
>> <https://beam.apache.org/contribute/release-guide/#run-build_release_candidatesh-to-create-a-release-candidate>)
>> using GitHub Actions.
>>
>> To do this, we can follow the guide here
>> <https://infra.apache.org/release-signing.html#automated-release-signing> and
>> ask the Infra team to add a signing key that we can use to run the
>> workflow. Basically, the asks would be:
>>
>> 1) Add a signing key (and passphrase) as GH Actions Secrets so that we
>> can sign the artifacts.
>> 2) Allowlist a GitHub Action (crazy-max/ghaction-import-gpg) to use the
>> key to sign artifacts.
>> 3) Add an Apache token (name and password) as GH Actions Secrets so that
>> we can upload the signed artifacts to Nexus.
>>
>> Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. If nobody
>> objects or raises more discussion points, I will assume lazy consensus
>> <https://community.apache.org/committers/lazyConsensus.html> after 72
>> hours.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Danny
>>
>

Reply via email to