Release 1.1.1

[kolyshkin]

As of now, I think we have a critical mass to bake a release in 1.1.x branch.

Here's a list of PRs:
https://github.com/opencontainers/runc/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Abackport%2F1.1-pr+

In particular, #3435 is important, as it blocks bumping runc to 1.1 in kubernetes (see kubernetes/kubernetes#109029).

[kolyshkin]

Ah! We need release notes; let me prepare it.

[kolyshkin]

OK, please proofread the relnotes here: #3439

[AkihiroSuda]

🎉 https://github.com/opencontainers/runc/releases/tag/v1.1.1

[Foxboron]

Yo,

It seems like 1.1.1 is missing a signed tag, and the commit is not signed either. This is a change from previous releases. Is this intentional and should we only utilize the signed tarballs?

[kolyshkin]

It seems like 1.1.1 is missing a signed tag, and the commit is not signed either. This is a change from previous releases. Is this intentional and should we only utilize the signed tarballs?

My bad for not signing the commit; it was not intentional.

The tag is actually signed (by me), but it was not shown as signed because I did not upload my GPG key to github (which is now fixed).

[Foxboron]

Ah, the UX for this isn't great and I was going off on the notes the other Arch package maintainer gave me :)

We pushed runc with the signed tarball this release and there isn't any good reason for us to use the git remote directly I think. I thought it would just be a good idea to mention it.

[cyphar]

I auto-sign all of my commits so when I do a release they'll always be signed. But yeah, part of our release process is generating signed tarballs and those are probably a better source to use (that's what I use in openSUSE for packaging as well).