The following are the version settings in the releasing step:
1. The version in sources and binaries to be such as: 5.0.0-beta
2. The tag in Github to be such as: 5.0.0-beta[RC1]
If the vote accepted then create a new tag named 5.0.0-beta or change the tag
from 5.0.0-beta[RC1] to 5.0.0-beta.
If not, then
(1) update the sources and binaries, keep version unchanged.
(2) delete the tag 5.0.0-beta[RC1]
(3) create a new tag 5.0.0-beta[RC2] and revote.
So, If we do it as this steps. We can save the version number named 5.0.0-beta
when vote not accept.
—————————
Yongsheng Peng
Apache SkyWalking PPMC member
> 在 2018年5月21日，21:23，Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org> 写道：
>
> On Mon, 21 May 2018 15:31:49 +0800, "吴晟 Sheng Wu" <wu.sh...@foxmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I understand in next time, we should add svn revision number. And do
>> you suggest we should add checksum in the mail?
>
> Yes, checksums in the vote email can be good as they are easy to
> cross-check, say if there is an RC2 vote followed by RC1,
> a PMC member who accidentally tests the old one again would not get the
> right checksum.
>
>
> Another reason is archival - a checksum sent to the email list, while
> unencrypted it is archived in multiple distributed archives and so
> becomes a permanent record about the versioned archive the PMC
> (eventually) publish and easy for anyone (say a Debian maintainer) to
> check/hardcode independent of the more origin-centric GPG signature.
>
>
> This would also make it easier to detect a 'rogue committer' (or more
> likely a wrong command line) that publish something that was not voted
> on. In the end the checksum files on the https://www.apache.org/dist/
> should then match a vote email.
> (AFAIK, nobody has attempted to automate such a check :)
>
>
> You have done well switching to secure sha512, but unlike say md5 and
> sha1 these are unfortunately not so email-friendly due to long lines,
> so if you want to try with sha512, sha512224, or fall back to sha1 for
> votes.. I don't know what would be easiest for your project.
>
> So I would let that be up to the SkyWalking community to decide, but
> IMHO at least one of either either svn revision or checksum should be in
> the email so it's clear what is being voted on. :)
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes
> The University of Manchester
> https://www.esciencelab.org.uk/
> https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
