This sounds good to me. -=Bill
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Kevin Sweeney <[email protected]> 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 >
