search

notaryproject / notation

A CLI tool to sign and verify artifacts
https://notaryproject.dev/
Apache License 2.0
306 stars 84 forks source link

bump: tag and release version v1.1.0 #876

Closed Two-Hearts closed 5 months ago

Two-Hearts commented 5 months ago

Release

This would mean tagging 99ca669edf9e171a912278166323b4c82f3d9706 as v1.1.0 to release.

Vote

We need at least 4 approvals from 6 maintainers to release notation v1.1.0.

Changes

The code changes compared to v1.0.0 include:

Action Requested

Please respond LGTM (approve) or REJECT (request for changes).

codecov-commenter commented 5 months ago

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Comparison is base (96d4f30) 64.93% compared to head (99ca669) 64.93%.

:exclamation: Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #876 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 64.93% 64.93% ======================================= Files 45 45 Lines 2729 2729 ======================================= Hits 1772 1772 Misses 795 795 Partials 162 162 ```

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

priteshbandi commented 5 months ago

Code change LGTM but the approval for tagging commit seems wrong; commit https://github.com/notaryproject/notation/commit/99ca669edf9e171a912278166323b4c82f3d9706 doesnt exists in the notation repo. IMO for tagging the commit we should vote in separate issue after merging this PR

Two-Hearts commented 5 months ago

Code change LGTM but the approval for tagging commit seems wrong; commit 99ca669 doesnt exists in the notation repo. IMO for tagging the commit we should vote in separate issue after merging this PR

Thanks @priteshbandi. @shizhMSFT @yizha1 @FeynmanZhou Do you have any comments/questions regarding this? (we followed the same pattern when releasing v1.0.1 and v1.0.0 though)

FeynmanZhou commented 5 months ago

Code change LGTM but the approval for tagging commit seems wrong; commit 99ca669 doesnt exists in the notation repo. IMO for tagging the commit we should vote in separate issue after merging this PR

@priteshbandi We updated the release checklist and process in another PR so voting on the release PR is enough in the new release process.

It's much efficient to review the change logs and vote on the PR than an issue because maintainers no longer need to approve twice.

priteshbandi commented 5 months ago

Code change LGTM but the approval for tagging commit seems wrong; commit 99ca669 doesnt exists in the notation repo. IMO for tagging the commit we should vote in separate issue after merging this PR

@priteshbandi We updated the release checklist and process in another PR so voting on the release PR is enough in the new release process.

It's much efficient to review the change logs and vote on the PR than an issue because maintainers no longer need to approve twice.

I appreciate the intention of reducing the work for maintainer but still the process is flawed because voters dont know what commit will be added in next release. I am fine for using our old process but we should look into this starting next release

shizhMSFT commented 5 months ago

LGTM