Skip to content

Build: Let revapi compare against 1.1.0#6275

Merged
rdblue merged 1 commit into
apache:masterfrom
nastra:patch-2
Nov 30, 2022
Merged

Build: Let revapi compare against 1.1.0#6275
rdblue merged 1 commit into
apache:masterfrom
nastra:patch-2

Conversation

@nastra
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@nastra nastra commented Nov 25, 2022

We should merge this once 1.1.0 has been released

@github-actions github-actions Bot added the build label Nov 25, 2022
@nastra nastra requested a review from Fokko November 28, 2022 12:27
@rdblue rdblue merged commit 8f52983 into apache:master Nov 30, 2022
@nastra nastra deleted the patch-2 branch November 30, 2022 05:36
@gaborkaszab
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@nastra While being a release manager for 1.1.0 I made list of improvements I'd like to add to the "how-to-release" page. Do you think I should add this step also to the list to make revapi work for the new release?

@ajantha-bhat
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

ajantha-bhat commented Dec 2, 2022

@gaborkaszab: I think we should add. And also this one
#6287

Please tag me for the review of the "how to release" update.

One more change that I would like to have it in how to release is to finish (or keep it ready) the document site PR before voting. So, once the voting passes we can announce the release quickly just after pushing release candidate to the maven repo. This way release will be more smoother (less confusing)
This time the delta between document update and maven jars publishing was a day or two (it is much better compared to previous times). But can still be better :)

@nastra
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

nastra commented Dec 2, 2022

@gaborkaszab yes it would make sense to add an item to the list that mentions that RevAPI needs to be updated to compare against the released version

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants