I like the idea of sending the sha in the vote. The tag changes, so it's not possible to go back and see what was voted on after release. We should provide both the sha and the tag.
-Ivan On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:47 AM, Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: > yes. I was thinking of doing the flink way to have an official image repo > at docker hub. > > - Sijie > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Jia Zhai <zhaiji...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I remember that, Do you mean we do bookkeeper docker following zookeeper >> and flink's way? >> >> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:19 AM, Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > I think it is better to change the docker image process, leaving tag >> > untouched. I have raised the discussion about official docker image ago. >> > That was for addressing the issues I have seen in docker image >> generation. >> > I think we should revisit docker release process rather than tag. >> > >> > On Nov 29, 2017 1:29 PM, "Enrico Olivelli" <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > Hi, >> > > During the release process we are voting a 'tag' but because of docker >> > > builder requirements we have to drop that voted tag and create a new >> one. >> > > I think that we can improve this process by writing explicitly the >> commit >> > > sha in the vote email so that it is clear what PMC and other >> > > committers/contributors are voting and they are sure that this will not >> > be >> > > altered in the future. >> > > I saw this in Apache Calcite vote process for instance. >> > > We can also make an improvement to write the git sha on manifests as we >> > are >> > > voting on binaries (I think that the vote is really on source, not on >> > > binaries) >> > > >> > > This is just an idea, maybe I misunderstand the process. But in this >> case >> > > it would be better not to cite the tag in the email and let people vote >> > > only on the staged source artifacts and/or make it clearer in the email >> > > what exactly we are going to release (binaries, sources, git sha, git >> > > tag...) >> > > >> > > I am not a lawyer I just want to understand what I am doing and improve >> > > things. >> > > >> > > Enrico >> > > -- >> > > >> > > >> > > -- Enrico Olivelli >> > > >> > >>
