aurora-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Zameer Manji <zma...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Tagging process
Date Sat, 14 Dec 2013 06:52:46 GMT
This process sounds good to me. So long as the process is automated I think
we will be fine. Will the person who creates the release ("release czar"?)
get to choose what lands on master before the release is cut?

Also does this mean we need to keep the CHANGELOG updated as we commit new
features so the tagged release has a proper changelog?



On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Kevin Sweeney <kevints@apache.org> wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> I think figuring out the tagging process sooner than later is in everyone's
> best interest so that we can get out of cherry-pick limbo. I'm out next
> week, but if anyone wants to take a stab at it (using
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/16265/ as a starting point or just throw it
> away, please feel free). My thinking:
>
> .auroraversion on master only ever contains -SNAPSHOT versions. This makes
> it harder for someone to reset and accidentally creating bogus non-SNAPSHOT
> artifacts.
>
> At each tag there are 2 commits. One on an anonymous branch that does
> s/-SNAPSHOT// and one on master that increments the MINOR portion of the
> version. So if master is 0.2.0-SNAPSHOT this new branch will have 0.2.0.
> For that commit we create an annotated (preferably PGP-signed) tag, 0.2.0.
> The other commit on master changes .auroraversion to 0.3.0-SNAPSHOT.
>
> Once everything is verified we'll push 2 things - the new master and the
> tag (so origin will not have a name for the branch the tag was created on).
>
> What does everyone think of this process?
> --
> Kevin Sweeney
> @kts
>



-- 
Zameer Manji

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message