+1 Might be worth testing it out beforehand to make sure it works with go?
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 7:53 AM Xiangdong Huang <[email protected]> wrote: > +1. > Also will call a discussion on the IoTDB mail-list to keep consistent :D > > Best, > ----------------------------------- > Xiangdong Huang > School of Software, Tsinghua University > > > Otto Fowler <[email protected]> 于2021年1月21日周四 下午8:29写道： > > > Sounds fine to me. > > +1 > > > > > On Jan 21, 2021, at 05:26, Christofer Dutz <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > a little discussion on the IoTDB list made me realize that I never > > actually discussed this here and I'd like to do it before we start the > next > > release. > > > > > > This will be the first containing Go content. Go resolves dependencies > > quite differently as it doesn't ship binaries, but you instead reference > > Git repositories (GitHub is actually best integrated type). You > reference a > > version of a Go library via git tags. So if you want a version 1.2.3, you > > actually reference a tag named "v1.2.3". I have seen that if you don't > > stick to that some tools and utils might have problems. > > > > > > So I would like to ask you, if you would agree that we change the > > release-tag naming scheme from "releases/{full-version}" to > > "v{full-version}" ... it doesn't have any side-effects to any other > tools. > > And it would eliminate the little discrepancy in the naming "release" > > branch, but "releases/" as prefix for tags (because if there's a branch > > called "release" we can't prefix a tag with "release/". > > > > > > So what do you think? > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > >
