Small update to README_RELEASE_PROVIDERS.md#58818
Conversation
vincbeck
requested review from
amoghrajesh,
ashb,
bugraoz93,
ephraimbuddy,
gopidesupavan,
jason810496,
jedcunningham,
jscheffl,
kaxil and
potiuk
as code owners
boring-cyborg
bot
added
area:dev-tools
backport-to-v3-1-test
potiuk
left a comment
potiuk
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you follow it exactly, those arguments are set from recently set variables. But yes - it does not hurt to pass them explicitly.
|
especially - worth spelling out the |
Interesting, I might have missed something then |
That's the thing, I was in |
vincbeck
force-pushed
the
vincbeck/provider_release_pmc_doc
branch
from
9a50282 to
5d685a2
Compare
|
Static checks are fixed in #58835, failure can be ignored. |
(cherry picked from commit 1f4f28d) Co-authored-by: Vincent <97131062+vincbeck@users.noreply.github.com>
Backport successfully created: v3-1-test
|
|
Providers are released from main, no backport needed in my view. |
(cherry picked from commit 1f4f28d) Co-authored-by: Vincent <97131062+vincbeck@users.noreply.github.com>
3 participants
I ran the PMC checks for provider release for the first time and I found some two very minor glimpses in the doc.
breeze release-management check-release-files providersrequires the--path-to-airflow-svnparameter--packages-fileshould contain the reference to thepackages.txtfile from the Airflow root repo and not the current directory.^ Add meaningful description above
Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information.
In case of fundamental code changes, an Airflow Improvement Proposal (AIP) is needed.
In case of a new dependency, check compliance with the ASF 3rd Party License Policy.
In case of backwards incompatible changes please leave a note in a newsfragment file, named
{pr_number}.significant.rstor{issue_number}.significant.rst, in airflow-core/newsfragments.