The reason I am pointing this out is that certain parts of Pekko build actually have code that introspects git tag/artifact names and the build actually failed with non standard (or non existing) tags (i.e. pekko-grpc). I don't know whether this is an issue or not for pekko core (it's likely not) but one thing that I have learnt the hard way is how much of Pekko in general is built around things that were done the Akka way.
I regret not having picked this up earlier when reading the release notes (I am a bit capacity drained right now so my focus isn't the best) but the point I am making is we should be a bit more careful/diligent about these things. I understand its difficult due to how much time pressure we have to push a release early but https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko-http/pull/180#issuecomment-1596224911 is a good recent example of what occurs if we just rush at all costs. And if we do need to go full throttle to make a release as soon as possible then when it comes to technical matters we should default to how things were done unless we break some ASF rule/process. > If the general consensus is to use 'RC' - we can use that in future release candidates, eg RC2. > I do not see any reason why the version name '1.0.0-rc1' should prevent people from validating this release candidate. My main issue is the git tag/artifacts since we do have build code that actually reads those tags/artifacts but at least when it comes to the git tag this is something I can ask INFRA to fix later. On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 1:18 PM PJ Fanning <[email protected]> wrote: > The 'rc1' versus 'RC1' debate. The original email uses the 'rc1' > naming because that what was used during building the artifacts. > > The release process was shared and noone commented on it. It has 'rc1' in > it. > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko-site/wiki/Pekko-Release-Process > > It took me 90 minutes to get the release candidate ready and I'm not > very willing to start the whole process again over a minor difference > in opinion in the name of the version. If the general consensus is to > use 'RC' - we can use that in future release candidates, eg RC2. > > If everyone starts -1 voting in this thread, I guess the 'rc1' will > need to be abandoned and a new RC2 done at some point in the future. > > I do not see any reason why the version name '1.0.0-rc1' should > prevent people from validating this release candidate. > > When we get approval to release, the artifacts will be rebuilt and > named as '1.0.0' anyway. > > On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 at 11:08, PJ Fanning <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hello Pekko Community, > > > > This is a call for a vote to release Apache Pekko(incubating) version > 1.0.0-rc1. > > > > The discussion thread: > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/xd4wp77bdwyll9243mnd9qc6j4d122kr > > > > The release candidate: > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/pekko/1.0.0-rc1/ > > > > This release has been signed with a PGP key available here: > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/pekko/1.0.0-rc1/KEYS > > > > Release Notes: > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/pekko/1.0.0-rc1/RELEASE_NOTES-1.0.0.txt > > > > Git branch for the release: > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko/tree/v1.0.0-rc1 > > Git commit ID: 6e40dee37bbbf847eb0e83e7e5bf4596d67b2b53 > > > > Please download, verify, and test. > > > > We have also staged jars in the Apache Nexus Repository. These were > > built with the same code as appears in this Source Release Candidate. > > We would appreciate if users could test with these too. > > > > If anyone finds any serious problems with these jars, please also > > notify us on this thread. > > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/staging/org/apache/pekko/ > > > > In sbt, you can add this resolver. > > > > resolvers += "Apache Pekko Staging" at > > "https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/staging"; > > > > > > The VOTE will pass if we have more positive votes than negative votes > > and there must be a minimum of 3 positive votes. > > > > Anyone voting in favour of the release, could you please provide a > > list of the checks you have done? > > > > The vote will be left open until 23:59 UTC on 22 June 2023. > > > > > > [ ] +1 approve > > [ ] +0 no opinion > > [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason > > > > > > To learn more about Apache Pekko, please see https://pekko.apache.org/ > > > > > > Checklist for reference: > > [ ] Download links are valid. > > [ ] Checksums and signatures. > > [ ] LICENSE/NOTICE files exist > > [ ] No unexpected binary files > > [ ] All source files have ASF headers > > [ ] Can compile from source > > > > > > To compile from the source, please refer to: > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko/blob/main/README.md#building-from-source > > > > Some notes about verifying downloads can be found at: > > > > https://pekko.apache.org/download.html#verifying-downloads > > > > > > Here is my +1. > > > > Thanks, > > PJ Fanning (Apache Pekko PPMC member and Apache Incubator PMC member) > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- Matthew de Detrich *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen *m:* +491603708037 *w:* aiven.io *e:* [email protected]
