couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache CouchDB 1.1.1 Release, Round 2
Date Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:15:19 GMT
Can you post this over on the tagging thread? :)

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Robert Newson <> wrote:

> Yes, quite reasonable.
> My take on tagging was to follow what we did with SVN with only minor
> changes to account for git. So I shall describe it.
> First, I create a signed tag for the release, with its intended final
> release value. In this case, exactly the string '1.1.1'. Then I build
> artifacts from the tag (which could be from a 'git archive 1.1.1' or
> 'git checkout 1.1.1 && git clean -xdfq'). When I'm happy with the
> output of that phase (i.e, I've done the diff -r, make check, Futon,
> etc from the generated tar.gz) I upload it to and
> push the tag (so that others can verify that it matches the release
> artifact).
> In the event of a round veto, I delete the 1.1.1 tag. In the next
> round, I create and push a new signed 1.1.1 tag as part of the same
> procedure.
> 'git pull --tags' correctly updates anyone's existing (but now wrong)
> 1.1.1 tag (the man page for git-tag goes on at some length that it
> doesn't do that and how evil such a thing would be, but it does it
> anyway).
> The arguments in the other thread about immutable tags are laudable
> but irrelevant. The tags in our source control system are not the
> source of truth for our releases. The presence of the release on the
> Apache mirrors is. The entire discussion around -rcX suffixes is to
> avoid any confusion between the failed artifacts and the release
> artifact. While a genuine concern, it's not worth all this soul
> searching in my opinion. The real 1.1.1 comes from the mirrors. When
> it's available on our mirrors then it also means that the 1.1.1 tag in
> source control points to it (and always will).
> B.
> On 21 October 2011 18:56, Noah Slater <> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Robert Newson <>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> nslater: Can we decide now if we're sticking with (approximately) the
> >> release procedure we've been following so far or whether we have to
> >> nail down all the git things and document before round 3 can begin?
> >>
> >
> > The actual text of the release procedure wiki page is unimportant. I
> realise
> > we want to get this out ASAP, and I don't want to be a PITA. But we DO
> need
> > to nail down how we're tagging releases. As long as we get that far, and
> as
> > along as round three is tagged according to that policy, and as long as
> we
> > write it down afterwards, I think I will be a happy bunny. Am I being
> > reasonable?
> >

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