Our release notes come bundled with the source package. In this case our notes are there in docs/ but it seems strange to only have 0.7.0 relnotes in a 0.7.1 release tarball.
Mike Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 4, 2016, at 6:21 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected]> wrote: > > I feel strongly against having to have the release notes updated on the > website before being able to roll out an RC. It always takes at least one > day to get reviews for that, more on big releases. Then, following RCs > might also need to have the notes updated, which delays things even more. > > If folks care about having some minimal form of release notes, we can do > something similar to what HBase does: > https://github.com/apache/hbase/blob/master/CHANGES.txt > > J-D > >> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 8:07 AM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Perhaps we can keep voting on this release, finish up the release notes >> today, and have a quick turnaround on rc2? I imagine if the diff between >> the tags is only in the docs/ directory, we can get the voting done in a >> couple hours (just verify the sha/signature, no need to rebuild and retest >> if the code is identical) >> >> -Todd >> >> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Just planning on pushing them to the website when 0.7.1 is available.. >>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:49 AM, Mike Percy <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Or maybe what you're saying is that you're already planning for an RC2. >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Mike Percy <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I'm a little confused about this. So you're saying that we won't >>> include >>>>> release notes in the source artifact for the release? That seems >> pretty >>>>> atypical. >>>>> >>>>> Mike >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 11:34 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans < >>> [email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Yeah was planning on casually doing that. My gripe with release >> notes >>> is >>>>>> that they take time to write and review, delaying an RC by days if >> we >>>> were >>>>>> to wait for them to be written before releasing it. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Should we edit docs/release_notes.adoc to include release notes >> for >>>>>> 0.7.1 >>>>>>> before releasing? It seems odd that the release wouldn't mention >> the >>>>>> latest >>>>>>> version in the included release notes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Todd >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans < >>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We're happy to announce the first release candidate for Apache >>> Kudu >>>>>>>> (incubating) 0.7.1. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This release fixes a few important bugs found during the process >>> of >>>>>>>> releasing 0.7.0 that didn't warrant sinking the vote for. It >> also >>>>>> takes >>>>>>>> care of fixing some licenses. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The is a source-only release. The artifacts were staged here: >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/kudu/0.7.1-RC1/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It was built from this tag: >> https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-kudu.git;a=commit;h=bd191ec7366e13c3a11c6144f3b5af03d6496b38 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The list of all issues fixed can be found here: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20KUDU%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%200.7.1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> KEYS file: >>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/kudu/KEYS >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'd suggest going through the README, building Kudu, and running >>> the >>>>>> unit >>>>>>>> tests. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please try the release and vote; vote will be open for at least >> 72 >>>>>> hours. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> J-D >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Todd Lipcon >>>>>>> Software Engineer, Cloudera >> >> >> >> -- >> Todd Lipcon >> Software Engineer, Cloudera >>
