Looks good. I'll update my PR now that we have the updated format. I assume we will apply a tag for the RC and release so we will want to consume that correctly. I can do that today.
Happy to upload the signed files to staging when we agree we are all ready to go. --Brennan On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, 11:04 AM Abdelatif Guettouche < abdelatif.guettou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The patch, however, could be an option. Some files will need to adapt > > to that though, not only the version.sh script. > > I submitted a PR for that. Please take a look. > (https://github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/pull/827) > > I backported some trivial changes and bugfixes from master to the > release branch. I guess once the release notes and this PR (if it > gets merged) are backported we can go ahead and create the tarballs > then call for a vote. > > Brennan, I understand that you have a script to upload the tarballs to > where they should be. Can you do that once we get everything in > place? They need to be signed as well. > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 2:10 AM Abdelatif Guettouche > <abdelatif.guettou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I don't think we need to expose the RC, it's not the one that's going > > to be released. > > The patch, however, could be an option. Some files will need to adapt > > to that though, not only the version.sh script. > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 5:33 PM Brennan Ashton > > <bash...@brennanashton.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 9:29 AM Abdelatif Guettouche < > > > abdelatif.guettou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > We should probably figure out how this patch would be represented > in code > > > > > and if we want to have 9.0.0-RC1 or whatever supported. > > > > What do you mean in code? > > > > A release will go through possibly multiple release candidates all > > > > tagged as 9.0.0-rcX, the final tag will be the same as the last > > > > accepted RC without the -rc suffix. > > > > Patches will have to go through the same process. With the voting in > > > > the incubator general list, etc. > > > > > > > > > > There is a version file that is generated but it only exposes major, > minor, > > > and build hash as defines for code to use. Do we need to extend the > code to > > > support a patch version? And should the RC be exposed to the code as > well > > > somehow (probably less important). > > > > > > > >
