Looks fairly straightforward to sign a release [1]. What is the workflow you'd suggest? Can we keep our current process and once the vote is done just add a step to make a new identical (but signed) tag with a name that doesn't include '-RC#'?
I'm good with that. I understand why the RC# throws folks off so happy to sort this out. [1] http://gitready.com/advanced/2014/11/02/gpg-sign-releases.html On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Ryan Blue <b...@cloudera.com> wrote: > +1 for a nifi-0.3.0 release tag. Signed is even better, but I don't think > I'd mind if it weren't signed. > > rb > > > On 09/21/2015 06:35 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: >> >> The pattern I've liked the most on other projects is to create a >> proper release tag, signed by the RM on passage of the release vote. I >> don't recall off-hand what the phrasing was in the VOTE thread (if >> any). >> >> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Adam Taft <a...@adamtaft.com> wrote: >>> >>> What's the thoughts on creating a proper 0.3.0 tag, as would be >>> traditional >>> for a final release? It is arguably a little confusing to only have the >>> RC >>> tags, when looking for the final release. I found this head scratching >>> for >>> 0.2.0 as well. >>> >>> Adam > > > > > -- > Ryan Blue > Software Engineer > Cloudera, Inc.
