If we're going with tags, I'd love one for each previous release. On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Adam Taft <a...@adamtaft.com> wrote: > Just bumping this conversation. Did we end up addressing this? Are we > going for a signed release tag? If so, does it make sense for the 0.3.0 > tag to be signed by the releasor (I believe Matt Gilman)? Or maybe just an > unsigned tag? > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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. >>
-- Sean
