couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Davis <>
Subject Re: Tweaking the release procedure
Date Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:33:40 GMT
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 4:28 AM, Jukka Zitting <> 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 <> 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 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.

View raw message