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.

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

ci(release): use new branch naming strategy #785

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
May 10, 2022

Conversation

smoya
Copy link
Member

@smoya smoya commented May 5, 2022

Relates to #734 (comment)

This PR changes the .releaserc file to reflect the changes on the branch naming strategy for releasing; using next-spec and next-major-spec branches.
This PR also updates the RELEASE_PROCESS.md accordingly. It also removes the step where the Release Coordinator should ask the Code Owners to create the release branch + the step where those should be added into .releaserc and/or package.json as they are not needed anymore.

@smoya smoya changed the title docs(release): specify new branch naming strategy ci(release): use new branch naming strategy May 5, 2022
dalelane
dalelane previously approved these changes May 5, 2022
Copy link
Collaborator

@dalelane dalelane left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

love how this made the process shorter :-)

derberg
derberg previously approved these changes May 10, 2022
Copy link
Member

@fmvilas fmvilas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just some minor (no pun intended) suggestion

RELEASE_PROCESS.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Fran Méndez <fmvilas@gmail.com>
@smoya smoya dismissed stale reviews from derberg and dalelane via 8a47caf May 10, 2022 12:57
Copy link
Collaborator

@dalelane dalelane left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@smoya
Copy link
Member Author

smoya commented May 10, 2022

/rtm

@asyncapi-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Hello, @smoya! 👋🏼
This PR is not up to date with the base branch and can't be merged.
Please update your branch manually with the latest version of the base branch.
PRO-TIP: Add a comment to your PR with the text: /au or /autoupdate and our bot will take care of updating the branch in the future. The only requirement for this to work is to enable Allow edits from maintainers option in your PR.
Thanks 😄

@sonarcloud
Copy link

sonarcloud bot commented May 10, 2022

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!    Quality Gate passed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 0 Code Smells

No Coverage information No Coverage information
No Duplication information No Duplication information

@smoya
Copy link
Member Author

smoya commented May 10, 2022

/rtm

@asyncapi-bot asyncapi-bot merged commit af0ac96 into asyncapi:master May 10, 2022
@smoya smoya deleted the docs/branches branch May 10, 2022 13:20
@asyncapi-bot
Copy link
Contributor

🎉 This PR is included in version 2.5.0-next-major-spec.1 🎉

The release is available on GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

@fmvilas
Copy link
Member

fmvilas commented Sep 22, 2022

Forget about the last comment saying it was released in version 2.5.0-next-major-spec.1. I made a mistake and it created this version but it should actually be 3.0.0-next-major-spec.1. There's a notice in the release. Apologies for the noise.

@asyncapi-bot
Copy link
Contributor

🎉 This PR is included in version 2.5.0-next-spec.5 🎉

The release is available on GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

@derberg
Copy link
Member

derberg commented Jan 31, 2023

Recent comments about the release from the bot were added by mistake. More details in #899

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants