incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From peng-yongsheng <8082...@qq.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache SkyWalking (incubating) version 5.0.0-beta
Date Mon, 21 May 2018 16:34:52 GMT
The following are the version settings in the releasing step: 
1. The version in sources and binaries to be such as: 5.0.0-beta
2. The tag in Github to be such as: 5.0.0-beta[RC1]

If the vote accepted then create a new tag named 5.0.0-beta or change the tag from 5.0.0-beta[RC1]
to 5.0.0-beta.
If not, then 
	(1) update the sources and binaries, keep version unchanged.
	(2) delete the tag 5.0.0-beta[RC1]
	(3) create a new tag 5.0.0-beta[RC2] and revote.

So, If we do it as this steps. We can save the version number named 5.0.0-beta when vote not
accept.

—————————
Yongsheng Peng
Apache SkyWalking PPMC member



> 在 2018年5月21日,21:23,Stian Soiland-Reyes <stain@apache.org> 写道:
> 
> On Mon, 21 May 2018 15:31:49 +0800, "吴晟 Sheng Wu" <wu.sheng@foxmail.com> wrote:
>> I understand in next time, we should add svn revision number. And do
>> you suggest we should add checksum in the mail? 
> 
> Yes, checksums in the vote email can be good as they are easy to
> cross-check, say if there is an RC2 vote followed by RC1,
> a PMC member who accidentally tests the old one again would not get the
> right checksum.
> 
> 
> Another reason is archival - a checksum sent to the email list, while 
> unencrypted it is archived in multiple distributed archives and so
> becomes a permanent record about the versioned archive the PMC
> (eventually) publish and easy for anyone (say a Debian maintainer) to
> check/hardcode independent of the more origin-centric GPG signature.
> 
> 
> This would also make it easier to detect a 'rogue committer' (or more
> likely a wrong command line) that publish something that was not voted
> on.  In the end the checksum files on the https://www.apache.org/dist/
> should then match a vote email.  
> (AFAIK, nobody has attempted to automate such a check :)
> 
> 
> You have done well switching to secure sha512, but unlike say md5 and
> sha1 these are unfortunately not so email-friendly due to long lines,
> so if you want to try with sha512, sha512224, or fall back to sha1 for
> votes.. I don't know what would be easiest for your project.
> 
> So I would let that be up to the SkyWalking community to decide, but
> IMHO at least one of either either svn revision or checksum should be in
> the email so it's clear what is being voted on. :)
> 
> 
> -- 
> Stian Soiland-Reyes
> The University of Manchester
> https://www.esciencelab.org.uk/
> https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> 


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message