aurora-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Wickman <wick...@twitter.com>
Subject Re: Tagging process
Date Sat, 14 Dec 2013 02:27:00 GMT
+1


On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Bill Farner <bill@twitter.com> wrote:

> This sounds good to me.
>
> -=Bill
>
>
> 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
>>
>
>

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