Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

bump: tag and release version v1.1.0 #876

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 25, 2024
Merged

bump: tag and release version v1.1.0 #876

merged 1 commit into from
Jan 25, 2024

Conversation

Two-Hearts
Copy link
Contributor

@Two-Hearts Two-Hearts commented Jan 25, 2024 •
edited

Release

This would mean tagging 99ca669 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).

@Two-Hearts
vote for version v1.1.0
99ca669 
Signed-off-by: Patrick Zheng <patrickzheng@microsoft.com>
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

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

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

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

JeyJeyGao
JeyJeyGao approved these changes Jan 25, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@JeyJeyGao JeyJeyGao left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@priteshbandi
Copy link
Contributor

priteshbandi commented Jan 25, 2024 •
edited

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

@Two-Hearts
Copy link
Contributor Author

Two-Hearts commented Jan 25, 2024 •
edited

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
Copy link
Member

FeynmanZhou commented Jan 25, 2024 •
edited

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
Copy link
Contributor

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
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM

@Two-Hearts Two-Hearts merged commit 31c3fe1 into notaryproject:main Jan 25, 2024
5 checks passed
@Two-Hearts Two-Hearts deleted the vote branch January 25, 2024 03:59
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@priteshbandi priteshbandi priteshbandi approved these changes

@JeyJeyGao JeyJeyGao JeyJeyGao approved these changes

@gokarnm gokarnm Awaiting requested review from gokarnm gokarnm is a code owner

@justincormack justincormack Awaiting requested review from justincormack

@NiazFK NiazFK Awaiting requested review from NiazFK NiazFK is a code owner

@rgnote rgnote Awaiting requested review from rgnote rgnote is a code owner

@shizhMSFT shizhMSFT Awaiting requested review from shizhMSFT shizhMSFT is a code owner

@SteveLasker SteveLasker Awaiting requested review from SteveLasker

@toddysm toddysm Awaiting requested review from toddysm toddysm is a code owner

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
6 participants
@Two-Hearts @codecov-commenter @priteshbandi @FeynmanZhou @shizhMSFT @JeyJeyGao