_
>> From: Sean Busbey
>> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 11:35 AM
>> To: dev@nifi.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Source code for Version 0.3.0
>>
>> If we're going with tags, I'd love one for each previous release.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2
> From: Sean Busbey
> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 11:35 AM
> To: dev@nifi.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Source code for Version 0.3.0
>
> 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 wrote:
>>
: dev@nifi.apache.org
Subject: Re: Source code for Version 0.3.0
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 wrote:
> Just bumping this conversation. Did we end up addressing this? Are we
> going for a signed rel
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 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 releaso
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 wrot
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
+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 r
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 wrote:
> What's the thoughts on creating a pr
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
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Esteban Alivert
Thanks!
Esteban Aliverti
- Blog @ http://ilesteban.wordpress.com
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Joe Witt wrote:
> Esteban
>
> The tag you mention is the correct tag for the 0.3.0 source.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
> On Sep 21, 2015 4:43 AM, "Esteban Aliverti"
Esteban
The tag you mention is the correct tag for the 0.3.0 source.
Thanks
Joe
On Sep 21, 2015 4:43 AM, "Esteban Aliverti"
wrote:
> Hi there,
> I want to give v. 0.3.0 a try and I would like to know where the source
> code for that version is.
> Right now, master has 0.3.1-SNAPSHOT version. I
11 matches
Mail list logo
