`rel`-prefixed tags (Was: [VOTE] (RC3) Release Apache Log4j Transformation Tools 0.1.0)

INFRA has dropped the `rel`-prefixed tag requirement. (See this `users@infra` thread .) Yet I get the team's sentiment on provenance and I agree with it. Yet the RC (release candidates) case is a bit muddy. I propose the following:

Re: [VOTE] (RC3) Release Apache Log4j Transformation Tools 0.1.0

+1 (With minor reservations) It built (but took 15 minutes) The artifact is properly signed. Verifying the hash still doesn’t work properly shasum -a 512 --check apache-log4j-transform-0.1.0-src.zip.sha512 shasum: apache-log4j-transform-0.1.0-src.zip.sha512: no properly formatted SHA checksum l

Re: `rel`-prefixed tags (Was: [VOTE] (RC3) Release Apache Log4j Transformation Tools 0.1.0)

This sounds reasonable, though I wonder how it works with the maven-release-plugin? I thought that automatically created tags. > On May 5, 2023, at 3:47 AM, Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > > INFRA has dropped the `rel`-prefixed tag requirement. (See this > `users@infra` thread >

Re: `rel`-prefixed tags (Was: [VOTE] (RC3) Release Apache Log4j Transformation Tools 0.1.0)

Yes, the maven release plugin creates tags (unless you configure it to create a branch instead). But Volkan is not using the release plugin. I am not really sure what the issue is with creating a tag named log4j-tools-1.1.0-rc1. These tags can be deleted later if you don’t want them once the r

Re: [VOTE] Release log4cxx 1.1.0-RC2

Hi Robert, On Thu, 4 May 2023 at 15:57, Thorsten Schöning wrote: > > Guten Tag Robert Middleton, > am Mittwoch, 3. Mai 2023 um 12:38 schrieben Sie: > > > Please download, test, and cast your votes on the log4j developers list. > > [] +1, release the artifacts > > [] -1, don't release because...

Re: [VOTE] (RC3) Release Apache Log4j Transformation Tools 0.1.0

On Fri, 5 May 2023 at 18:09, Ralph Goers wrote: > > +1 > (With minor reservations) And this is my +1 (also with minor reservations). All Maven artifacts are reproducible, The source archive has been also attached to `log4j-transform-bom`. It can have reproducibility problems if computed on a no

Re: `rel`-prefixed tags (Was: [VOTE] (RC3) Release Apache Log4j Transformation Tools 0.1.0)

Hi Volkan, On Fri, 5 May 2023 at 10:47, Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > Yet I get the team's sentiment on provenance and I agree with it. Yet the > RC (release candidates) case is a bit muddy. I propose the following: For > voting purposes, only share the commit ID, and only create a `rel/x.y.z` > tag if

Re: [VOTE] Release log4cxx 1.1.0-RC2

Adding my +1. With that, the vote officially passes with the +3 votes from me, Piotr, and Volkan, with Thorsten and Steven adding their +1 as well. I will proceed with the release. -Robert Middleton On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 2:04 PM Piotr P. Karwasz wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > On Thu, 4 May 2023 at