Did you get your "key" where it needs to be ?
On Sep 22, 2009, at 12:17 PM, Josh Thompson wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Based on Kevan's input, we'll go with options 2 and 3 - a tag to
make it easy
to see what the RC was based off of, and an actual RC artifact that
people
can vote on.
I'll go ahead and add that to the "Cutting a VCL Release" and then
start on
the process outlined on that page. I can go ahead and sign it with
my key,
but I still need to get my key into the ASF WOT somehow.
Josh
On Monday September 21, 2009, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Sep 18, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Josh Thompson wrote:
(2) pros - not as easy as #1, but still pretty easy
- if a vote fails, just create another tag
cons - same cons as #1, plus:
- could result in many tags that could make subversion a
little
cluttered
A tag is best, IMO.
If a vote fails, then you can always delete the corresponding
directory in tags/ (this reduces the apparent clutter). And then spin
a new release candidate for a new vote. Then a question of whether or
not your tags have unique names (e.g. 0.5-RC1, 0.5-RC2, etc or just
0.5 w/ corresponding revision #). I've seen communities use either
approach. Personally, I prefer simple name (e.g. 0.5 and note the
revision number in the release).
My current understanding is that: technically, a release vote is not
on the code that is in SVN. Instead the vote is on the source archive
that the release manager has created (which has been digitally
signed). Expectation is that the source archive matches the tag code
(and this should be verified during release vote).
--kevan
- --
- -------------------------------
Josh Thompson
Systems Programmer
Advanced Computing | VCL Developer
North Carolina State University
[email protected]
919-515-5323
my GPG/PGP key can be found at pgp.mit.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFKuPiEV/LQcNdtPQMRAvSlAJ98hBqVT+E4z+0eKiCumqDkY9nLIACdFqI/
aZn40Z4aBhEgHeyJuI6vsr8=
=3UwY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
