couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randall Leeds <randall.le...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Tweaking the release procedure
Date Sat, 22 Oct 2011 04:36:02 GMT
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 21:34, Randall Leeds <randall.leeds@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 20:31, Jason Smith <jhs@iriscouch.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 5:06 AM, Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org>
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Robert Newson <rnewson@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Here's another suggestion.
>> >>
>> >> In all vote emails, we include the commit id that the release
>> >> artifacts were built from, but create no tag at all.
>> >
>> > I love it when something is so obvious you wonder why it wasn't apparent
>> in
>> > the first place. I love this suggestion, and the specifics of how you
>> > communicate the git commit hash is unimportant. If there's a "describe"
>> > command to make it easier, so be it. We only tag when we mean to tag a
>> > release, for reals.
>>
>> Noah, your previous opinion was superior.
>>
>> Bob, please consider whether you beat yourself up due to old
>> Subversion habits. You shout into the aether, "We are all voting on
>> commit abcdef!" and everybody tries out that commit, understanding
>> that it could be a Big Deal.
>>
>> That sounds like a tag by another name. I hope that official ASF
>> releases could have corresponding persistent, unchanging Git tags; and
>> also that moments of significance (release votes) would be reflected
>> in the repository, rather than the mailing list archives.
>>
>> --
>> Iris Couch
>>
>
> I'll stay brief, because I'm intimidated by this thread.
>
> I hear the call for semver and fully support it. I would be sad if we ended
> up with release/X.Y.Z instead of vX.Y.Z.
>
> Reading over the spec, I see that it calls for ASCII sorting of components,
> which suggests that rc would obsolete vote which means all of the following
> tags are valid and ordered correctly:
>

Whoops! I meant vote would obsolete rc and i've inserted a vote on v1.2 here
to show what I meant to say:


>
> v1.2rc1-vote1
> v1.2rc1-vote2
> v1.2rc1
> v1.2rc2-vote1
> v1.2rc2
>
 v1.2vote1
v1.2vote2

> v1.2
>
> Seems right and simple to me. I'd have to scrutinize it closely and try a
> few, but I'm pretty sure the rpm version comparison would agree with this
> ordering. Anyone know about deb? Others?
>
> If the last vote tag is identical to the release tag in terms of referenced
> commit then that seems to fit all the desired properties of immutability and
> history.
>
> -Randall
>
>

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