Re: Source code for Version 0.3.0

_ >> From: Sean Busbey >> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 11:35 AM >> To: dev@nifi.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Source code for Version 0.3.0 >> >> If we're going with tags, I'd love one for each previous release. >> >> On Fri, Oct 2, 2

Re: Source code for Version 0.3.0

> From: Sean Busbey > Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 11:35 AM > To: dev@nifi.apache.org > Subject: Re: Source code for Version 0.3.0 > > If we're going with tags, I'd love one for each previous release. > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Adam Taft wrote: >>

Re: Source code for Version 0.3.0

: dev@nifi.apache.org Subject: Re: Source code for Version 0.3.0 If we're going with tags, I'd love one for each previous release. On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Adam Taft wrote: > Just bumping this conversation. Did we end up addressing this? Are we > going for a signed rel

Re: Source code for Version 0.3.0

If we're going with tags, I'd love one for each previous release. On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Adam Taft wrote: > Just bumping this conversation. Did we end up addressing this? Are we > going for a signed release tag? If so, does it make sense for the 0.3.0 > tag to be signed by the releaso

Re: Source code for Version 0.3.0

Just bumping this conversation. Did we end up addressing this? Are we going for a signed release tag? If so, does it make sense for the 0.3.0 tag to be signed by the releasor (I believe Matt Gilman)? Or maybe just an unsigned tag? Thanks, Adam On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Joe Witt wrot

Re: Source code for Version 0.3.0

Looks fairly straightforward to sign a release [1]. What is the workflow you'd suggest? Can we keep our current process and once the vote is done just add a step to make a new identical (but signed) tag with a name that doesn't include '-RC#'? I'm good with that. I understand why the RC# throws

Re: Source code for Version 0.3.0

+1 for a nifi-0.3.0 release tag. Signed is even better, but I don't think I'd mind if it weren't signed. rb On 09/21/2015 06:35 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: The pattern I've liked the most on other projects is to create a proper release tag, signed by the RM on passage of the release vote. I don't r

Re: Source code for Version 0.3.0

The pattern I've liked the most on other projects is to create a proper release tag, signed by the RM on passage of the release vote. I don't recall off-hand what the phrasing was in the VOTE thread (if any). On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Adam Taft wrote: > What's the thoughts on creating a pr

Re: Source code for Version 0.3.0

What's the thoughts on creating a proper 0.3.0 tag, as would be traditional for a final release? It is arguably a little confusing to only have the RC tags, when looking for the final release. I found this head scratching for 0.2.0 as well. Adam On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Esteban Alivert

Re: Source code for Version 0.3.0

Thanks! Esteban Aliverti - Blog @ http://ilesteban.wordpress.com On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Joe Witt wrote: > Esteban > > The tag you mention is the correct tag for the 0.3.0 source. > > Thanks > Joe > On Sep 21, 2015 4:43 AM, "Esteban Aliverti"

Re: Source code for Version 0.3.0

Esteban The tag you mention is the correct tag for the 0.3.0 source. Thanks Joe On Sep 21, 2015 4:43 AM, "Esteban Aliverti" wrote: > Hi there, > I want to give v. 0.3.0 a try and I would like to know where the source > code for that version is. > Right now, master has 0.3.1-SNAPSHOT version. I

Source code for Version 0.3.0

Hi there, I want to give v. 0.3.0 a try and I would like to know where the source code for that version is. Right now, master has 0.3.1-SNAPSHOT version. I noticed there is a nifi-0.3.0-RC1 ta