couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Newson <rnew...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Tweaking the release procedure
Date Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:43:01 GMT
I'll also note that 'git pull --tags' will update any tags that have
changed, despite what the man page for git-tags actually says.

B.

On 21 October 2011 17:39, Robert Dionne <dionne@dionne-associates.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 21, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 4:28 AM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> My 2c from the gallery. I'm not involved in CouchDB, so just making
>>> general observations from the perspective of other Apache projects
>>> interested in using Git.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 5:51 AM, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>> As Noah points out, there are ASF procedural issues that affect this
>>>> discussion. Part of making a release involves getting community input
>>>> on whether the release is a valid artefact. As such we need to be able
>>>> to refer to these "not-release" sets of bytes.
>>>
>>> I'd say that's a perfectly valid use of tags. An official release
>>> should be backed by a tag, but there's no requirement for the reverse.
>>> Using tags for release candidates or other milestones should also be
>>> fine. It should be up to each project to decide how they want to name
>>> and manage tags.
>>>
>>> I also find the idea of renaming a release tag after the vote
>>> completes a bit troublesome. The way I see it, a release manager will
>>> tag a given state of the source tree and use that tag to build the
>>> release candidate. After that no repository changes should be required
>>> regardless of the result of the release vote. If the vote passes, the
>>> candidate packages are pushed to www.apache.org/dist as-is. Otherwise
>>> the release candidate is just dropped and the next one made.
>>>
>>> This kind of a workflow also solves the "1.1.1 vs. 1.1.1-rc1" problem.
>>> If each release candidate is given a separate new tag and version
>>> number (i.e. "1.1.1 vs 1.1.2"), then there can be no confusion about
>>> which build is being tested. Version numbers are cheap.
>>>
>>> BR,
>>>
>>> Jukka Zitting
>>>
>>
>> Are there projects that do this version incrementing when a vote
>> fails? That's an idea I haven't heard before.
>
> I think this is pretty common
>
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message