I will send it 2017-11-30 14:29 GMT+01:00 Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org>:
> PR is enough. People can vote with their reviews. > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > For this kind of changes do we need a vote ? or is it enough a PR against > > the release guide ? > > > > Enrico > > > > 2017-11-30 12:23 GMT+01:00 Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org>: > > > >> 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 > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >
