[DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.8.0 RC1

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
82 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.8.0 RC1

Justin Mclean
Administrator
Hi,

> mvn clean install -Drat.skip=true -s ~/.m2/settings-test.xml
>
> (My settings-test.xml simply excludes the Apache snapshot repo)

So by just removing this right?
 <server>
   <id>apache.snapshots.https</id>
   <username>jmclean</username>
   <password>XXXXX</password>
 </server>

If so I’m still getting this:
error: patch failed: js/target/downloads/svg.js:401
error: js/target/downloads/svg.js: patch does not apply

When compiling typedefs here:
apache-flex-falconjx-0.8.0-src/flex-typedefs

> Another thing I noticed, is that the build is producing SNAPSHOT versions and is referencing SNAPSHOT versions. We will not be able to publish these artifacts to Maven Central. Well we will also not be able to publish them to the Apache Repo for release.

So it likely in your opinion we need to make changes and publish another RC or perhaps even a 0.8.1?

> bash-3.2$ git --version
> git version 2.12.0

I have  2.11.0 I’ll try 2.12.0 and see if that makes any difference.

> But not being able to release stuff to Maven-Central is reason enough for a -1 … sorry for that …

You'll need to do that in the [VOTE] thread for it to count.

Thanks,
Justin


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.8.0 RC1

Christofer Dutz
Actually not by removing the credentials … by using an empty settings.xml or none at all and having a default. My settings-test.xml only contains the location of the maven local repo and no other settings therefore Maven defaults to its built-in defaults (I did manually provide the artifacts the mavenizer would have created though)

Chris

Am 12.06.17, 11:23 schrieb "Justin Mclean" <[hidden email]>:

    Hi,
   
    > mvn clean install -Drat.skip=true -s ~/.m2/settings-test.xml
    >
    > (My settings-test.xml simply excludes the Apache snapshot repo)
   
    So by just removing this right?
     <server>
       <id>apache.snapshots.https</id>
       <username>jmclean</username>
       <password>XXXXX</password>
     </server>
   
    If so I’m still getting this:
    error: patch failed: js/target/downloads/svg.js:401
    error: js/target/downloads/svg.js: patch does not apply
   
    When compiling typedefs here:
    apache-flex-falconjx-0.8.0-src/flex-typedefs
   
    > Another thing I noticed, is that the build is producing SNAPSHOT versions and is referencing SNAPSHOT versions. We will not be able to publish these artifacts to Maven Central. Well we will also not be able to publish them to the Apache Repo for release.
   
    So it likely in your opinion we need to make changes and publish another RC or perhaps even a 0.8.1?
   
    > bash-3.2$ git --version
    > git version 2.12.0
   
    I have  2.11.0 I’ll try 2.12.0 and see if that makes any difference.
   
    > But not being able to release stuff to Maven-Central is reason enough for a -1 … sorry for that …
   
    You'll need to do that in the [VOTE] thread for it to count.
   
    Thanks,
    Justin
   
   
   

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.8.0 RC1

piotrz
In reply to this post by Christofer Dutz
Chris,

I still didn't get clear answer to my question. I would like to understand it in order to do this in the next release. I will try to clarify my questions:

1) Once release manager make "Last Call" - Should I remove SNAPSHOT from all poms on release branch ?
2) Should I do 1 during VOTING ?

Piotr
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.8.0 RC1

Christofer Dutz
No,

The removing the SNAPSHOT, tagging and setting the new version should be, more or less, one step.

The maven-release-plugin handles almost all of this in one step. So if your do a release:prepare all of this should happen. You can then have others checkout the tag and if all give their go, you run “release:perform” to stage the release to nexus. Or you immediately stage the release after preparing, which is probably what is done in most cases. As soon as the release vote is successful the release manager logs in to Nexus and hits the “release repo” button and off goes the release.

Chris

Am 12.06.17, 11:19 schrieb "piotrz" <[hidden email]>:

    Chris,
   
    I still didn't get clear answer to my question. I would like to understand
    it in order to do this in the next release. I will try to clarify my
    questions:
   
    1) Once release manager make "Last Call" - Should I remove SNAPSHOT from all
    poms on release branch ?
    2) Should I do 1 during VOTING ?
   
    Piotr
   
   
   
    -----
    Apache Flex PMC
    [hidden email]
    --
    View this message in context: http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Discuss-Release-Apache-FlexJS-0-8-0-RC1-tp62274p62335.html
    Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
   

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.8.0 RC1

piotrz
Ok. So all your steps are required for post VOTING.

I didn't have problems when I was building sources downloaded by ApproveFlexJS script, but I will try again at home to make sure that I didn't have -Dskip.rat.

Piotr
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.8.0 RC1

Christofer Dutz
No, the steps should be done as part of creating the RC not after the vote.
Otherwise you would be releasing something different than what was voted on. I remember is doing that for the 0.7.0 and we got quite a lot of questions from the different bots doing their checks.

Chris



Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.


-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: piotrz <[hidden email]>
Datum: 12.06.17 11:56 (GMT+01:00)
An: [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.8.0 RC1

Ok. So all your steps are required for post VOTING.

I didn't have problems when I was building sources downloaded by
ApproveFlexJS script, but I will try again at home to make sure that I
didn't have -Dskip.rat.

Piotr



-----
Apache Flex PMC
[hidden email]
--
View this message in context: http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Discuss-Release-Apache-FlexJS-0-8-0-RC1-tp62274p62337.html
Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.8.0 RC1

piotrz
Chris,

I'm a bit confused. You have said that I shouldn't do this as part of VOTING, LAST CALL:

"No,

The removing the SNAPSHOT, tagging and setting the new version should be, more or less, one step.
"

Now you are saying just opposite. So again when I should do this (Last Call, Voting) step ?

"1) In order to have a proper Maven release, the versions of the maven build should be changed to “0.8.0” (omit the SNAPSHOT). "

Piotr
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.8.0 RC1

Christofer Dutz
It should be between the Last call and opening the vote. It is equal to “cutting the release candidate”.

So, the LAST CALL thread is finished and the RM writes that he’s going to cut a release … AFTER THAT he does these steps and THEN he opens the vote thread. I never said anything else than that.

Chris


Am 12.06.17, 12:30 schrieb "piotrz" <[hidden email]>:

    Chris,
   
    I'm a bit confused. You have said that I shouldn't do this as part of
    VOTING, LAST CALL:
   
    "No,
   
    The removing the SNAPSHOT, tagging and setting the new version should be,
    more or less, one step.
    "
   
    Now you are saying just opposite. So again when I should do this (Last Call,
    Voting) step ?
   
    "1) In order to have a proper Maven release, the versions of the maven build
    should be changed to “0.8.0” (omit the SNAPSHOT). "
   
    Piotr
   
   
   
    -----
    Apache Flex PMC
    [hidden email]
    --
    View this message in context: http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Discuss-Release-Apache-FlexJS-0-8-0-RC1-tp62274p62341.html
    Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
   

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.8.0 RC1

piotrz
Chris,

I hope I didn't offend you or something. I would like to understand it clearly in order to do this if you will not be available in the next release cause of other tasks.

Do we have your steps on confluence ? If not will you have some time to put there as part of release process ?

Thanks, Piotr
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.8.0 RC1

Christofer Dutz
Hi Piotr,

No … all good (

I’d be happy to document things that help someone that wants to dig into Maven.
Right now, most of my free dev-time is going to other Apache projects so my time is limited, but documenting this a little should be ok.

 Chris


 

Am 12.06.17, 13:25 schrieb "piotrz" <[hidden email]>:

    Chris,
   
    I hope I didn't offend you or something. I would like to understand it
    clearly in order to do this if you will not be available in the next release
    cause of other tasks.
   
    Do we have your steps on confluence ? If not will you have some time to put
    there as part of release process ?
   
    Thanks, Piotr
   
   
   
    -----
    Apache Flex PMC
    [hidden email]
    --
    View this message in context: http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Discuss-Release-Apache-FlexJS-0-8-0-RC1-tp62274p62343.html
    Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
   

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.8.0 RC1

yishayw
In reply to this post by Carlos Rovira
Doesn't this logic mean that all the releases up to now have been invalid?

It seems to me there is some interest in the extended community to see a release out. Looking at the RELEASE_NOTES I see lots of nice new features and bug fixes, which would be beneficial to people who want to start using FlexJS.


Carlos Rovira wrote
Total agree since the main purpose of this process is in fact to make a
"release" and if that release can't go to Maven-Central...is not valid at
all...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.8.0 RC1

Alex Harui-2
In reply to this post by Christofer Dutz
I'm confused.  Can I get a summary?

Are there some files that are being caught by RAT?  If so, what are they?

Are we sure the process should be that the RM should switch away from
SNAPSHOT before the vote?  If a major problem is found in that RC,
wouldn't we have deployed bad artifacts under the final version number and
have to pull them back?  Or abandon that release version and use the next
version number?

IMO, the main thing folks want from Maven are the JARs which aren't an
official ASF release anyway.  Seems like we should vote on a source
package, then set any version numbers and have Maven build the final jars
from there.  The differences in the source should only be in POMs and
other configs right?

What am I missing?
-Alex

On 6/12/17, 3:53 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>It should be between the Last call and opening the vote. It is equal to
>“cutting the release candidate”.
>
>So, the LAST CALL thread is finished and the RM writes that he’s going to
>cut a release … AFTER THAT he does these steps and THEN he opens the vote
>thread. I never said anything else than that.
>
>Chris
>
>
>Am 12.06.17, 12:30 schrieb "piotrz" <[hidden email]>:
>
>    Chris,
>    
>    I'm a bit confused. You have said that I shouldn't do this as part of
>    VOTING, LAST CALL:
>    
>    "No,
>    
>    The removing the SNAPSHOT, tagging and setting the new version should
>be,
>    more or less, one step.
>    "
>    
>    Now you are saying just opposite. So again when I should do this
>(Last Call,
>    Voting) step ?
>    
>    "1) In order to have a proper Maven release, the versions of the
>maven build
>    should be changed to “0.8.0” (omit the SNAPSHOT). "
>    
>    Piotr
>    
>    
>    
>    -----
>    Apache Flex PMC
>    [hidden email]
>    --
>    View this message in context:
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-fle
>x-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com%2FDISCUSS-Discuss-Release-Apache-FlexJ
>S-0-8-0-RC1-tp62274p62341.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C764b156340ed4161762808d4b
>1813b7a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636328616008847001&sd
>ata=pnXSK31V8HvCRI9NlEVlGD0SgCczOCQYlw0PyoVZnfQ%3D&reserved=0
>    Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at
>Nabble.com.
>    
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.8.0 RC1

Christofer Dutz
Replying to Yishay and Alex:

Last time I took the release source bundle, changed the versions and ran a release build. Even if this worked, it was just a hack and technically we published release artifacts that are different than the version we voted on. So, someone who downloads the release archive will not be able to reproduce the build. I am not going to do this this time as I think this is not the Apache way.

The flex-typedefs is not a maven module from the point of view of the compiler build. So rat checks the content as part of the root modules check. It will check every file in that directory for license headers (even stuff in an eventually existing target directory). The exclusion instruction is in the pom.xml inside the flex-typedefs directory and isn’t acive when building the compiler (they are separate builds). One was to avoid this would be to exclude the flexjs-typedefs directory in the compilers rat-check (even if the orginal repo doesn’t contain that directory). The better solution would be to do 3 releases and not integrate the typedefs in the compiler artifact (Which I think is the correct way to do it)

I think it is an issue … as a Maven artifact is the binaries plus the poms. Changes in the poms can greatly affect the functionality of the binaries.

Chris


Am 12.06.17, 21:41 schrieb "Alex Harui" <[hidden email]>:

    I'm confused.  Can I get a summary?
   
    Are there some files that are being caught by RAT?  If so, what are they?
   
    Are we sure the process should be that the RM should switch away from
    SNAPSHOT before the vote?  If a major problem is found in that RC,
    wouldn't we have deployed bad artifacts under the final version number and
    have to pull them back?  Or abandon that release version and use the next
    version number?
   
    IMO, the main thing folks want from Maven are the JARs which aren't an
    official ASF release anyway.  Seems like we should vote on a source
    package, then set any version numbers and have Maven build the final jars
    from there.  The differences in the source should only be in POMs and
    other configs right?
   
    What am I missing?
    -Alex
   
    On 6/12/17, 3:53 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <[hidden email]> wrote:
   
    >It should be between the Last call and opening the vote. It is equal to
    >“cutting the release candidate”.
    >
    >So, the LAST CALL thread is finished and the RM writes that he’s going to
    >cut a release … AFTER THAT he does these steps and THEN he opens the vote
    >thread. I never said anything else than that.
    >
    >Chris
    >
    >
    >Am 12.06.17, 12:30 schrieb "piotrz" <[hidden email]>:
    >
    >    Chris,
    >    
    >    I'm a bit confused. You have said that I shouldn't do this as part of
    >    VOTING, LAST CALL:
    >    
    >    "No,
    >    
    >    The removing the SNAPSHOT, tagging and setting the new version should
    >be,
    >    more or less, one step.
    >    "
    >    
    >    Now you are saying just opposite. So again when I should do this
    >(Last Call,
    >    Voting) step ?
    >    
    >    "1) In order to have a proper Maven release, the versions of the
    >maven build
    >    should be changed to “0.8.0” (omit the SNAPSHOT). "
    >    
    >    Piotr
    >    
    >    
    >    
    >    -----
    >    Apache Flex PMC
    >    [hidden email]
    >    --
    >    View this message in context:
    >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-fle
    >x-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com%2FDISCUSS-Discuss-Release-Apache-FlexJ
    >S-0-8-0-RC1-tp62274p62341.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C764b156340ed4161762808d4b
    >1813b7a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636328616008847001&sd
    >ata=pnXSK31V8HvCRI9NlEVlGD0SgCczOCQYlw0PyoVZnfQ%3D&reserved=0
    >    Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at
    >Nabble.com.
    >    
    >
   
   

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.8.0 RC1

Justin Mclean
Administrator
In reply to this post by Alex Harui-2
Hi,

> Are there some files that are being caught by RAT?  If so, what are they?

I mentioned them in my vote email. [1] 3 patch files don’t have ASF headers.

> IMO, the main thing folks want from Maven are the JARs which aren't an
> official ASF release anyway.  Seems like we should vote on a source
> package, then set any version numbers and have Maven build the final jars
> from there.  The differences in the source should only be in POMs and
> other configs right?

Which is IMO not permitted by ASF release policy as the binary connivance releases need to be made from the tagged source release. [2] (and elsewhere)

Thanks,
Justin

1. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/47ad4369d92791280f8cdfb0d1e208cafb7d58860f0f743b54a76599@%3Cdev.flex.apache.org%3E <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/47ad4369d92791280f8cdfb0d1e208cafb7d58860f0f743b54a76599@%3Cdev.flex.apache.org%3E>
2. http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#compiled-packages <http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#compiled-packages>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.8.0 RC1

Dave Fisher
Hi -

> On Jun 12, 2017, at 3:34 PM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> Are there some files that are being caught by RAT?  If so, what are they?
>
> I mentioned them in my vote email. [1] 3 patch files don’t have ASF headers.

We may need to revisit the project’s preferred way of doing this. From what I recall of the legal-discuss along with hallway discussions at Apachecon there is more than one way.

Justin - you did state that you consider this acceptable for this release and that we can clean it up for the next. I suggest that we take care of this immediately after the release.

>
>> IMO, the main thing folks want from Maven are the JARs which aren't an
>> official ASF release anyway.  Seems like we should vote on a source
>> package, then set any version numbers and have Maven build the final jars
>> from there.  The differences in the source should only be in POMs and
>> other configs right?
>
> Which is IMO not permitted by ASF release policy as the binary connivance releases need to be made from the tagged source release. [2] (and elsewhere)

AFAIK this is correct. Renaming the artifact is ok but the convenience binaries should always be made from the tagged release. Note that different versions of JAVA on different OS may produce slightly differing Jars from the same source code. We will need to trust the release manager who signs with their personal key that this is correctly done.

Regards,
Dave

>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/47ad4369d92791280f8cdfb0d1e208cafb7d58860f0f743b54a76599@%3Cdev.flex.apache.org%3E <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/47ad4369d92791280f8cdfb0d1e208cafb7d58860f0f743b54a76599@%3Cdev.flex.apache.org%3E>
> 2. http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#compiled-packages <http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#compiled-packages>
>


signature.asc (817 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.8.0 RC1

Justin Mclean
Administrator
Hi,

> Justin - you did state that you consider this acceptable for this release and that we can clean it up for the next.

Yes I stated that in my vote and that would be acceptable.

Thanks,
Justin
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.8.0 RC1

Dave Fisher
In reply to this post by Alex Harui-2
Hi -

> On Jun 12, 2017, at 12:41 PM, Alex Harui <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'm confused.  Can I get a summary?
>
> Are there some files that are being caught by RAT?  If so, what are they?
>
> Are we sure the process should be that the RM should switch away from
> SNAPSHOT before the vote?  If a major problem is found in that RC,
> wouldn't we have deployed bad artifacts under the final version number and
> have to pull them back?  Or abandon that release version and use the next
> version number?
The Tomcat project will user version numbers. If a version fails then they advance to the next. They still produce changelings for the version that is not released. You can see the gory details for version 7 here: http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/changelog.html

Regards,
Dave

>
> IMO, the main thing folks want from Maven are the JARs which aren't an
> official ASF release anyway.  Seems like we should vote on a source
> package, then set any version numbers and have Maven build the final jars
> from there.  The differences in the source should only be in POMs and
> other configs right?
>
> What am I missing?
> -Alex
>
> On 6/12/17, 3:53 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> It should be between the Last call and opening the vote. It is equal to
>> “cutting the release candidate”.
>>
>> So, the LAST CALL thread is finished and the RM writes that he’s going to
>> cut a release … AFTER THAT he does these steps and THEN he opens the vote
>> thread. I never said anything else than that.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> Am 12.06.17, 12:30 schrieb "piotrz" <[hidden email]>:
>>
>>   Chris,
>>
>>   I'm a bit confused. You have said that I shouldn't do this as part of
>>   VOTING, LAST CALL:
>>
>>   "No,
>>
>>   The removing the SNAPSHOT, tagging and setting the new version should
>> be,
>>   more or less, one step.
>>   "
>>
>>   Now you are saying just opposite. So again when I should do this
>> (Last Call,
>>   Voting) step ?
>>
>>   "1) In order to have a proper Maven release, the versions of the
>> maven build
>>   should be changed to “0.8.0” (omit the SNAPSHOT). "
>>
>>   Piotr
>>
>>
>>
>>   -----
>>   Apache Flex PMC
>>   [hidden email]
>>   --
>>   View this message in context:
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-fle
>> x-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com%2FDISCUSS-Discuss-Release-Apache-FlexJ
>> S-0-8-0-RC1-tp62274p62341.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C764b156340ed4161762808d4b
>> 1813b7a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636328616008847001&sd
>> ata=pnXSK31V8HvCRI9NlEVlGD0SgCczOCQYlw0PyoVZnfQ%3D&reserved=0
>>   Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at
>> Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>


signature.asc (817 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.8.0 RC1

Christofer Dutz
Hi all,

Please don’t let this become another license discussion … I thought that had been settled. I intentionally added that this was a technical issue in my report.
If the flexjs-typedefs directory is going to be included in the compiler package, the compiler packages pom needs an exclusion for the flexjs-typedefs directory to avoid any problems like this. The content of the flesjs-typedefs directory will be checked by the flexjs-typedefs build so in the end all is checked. I’m just going to do this little tweak myself so if a new release candidate is created, we have this “fix” in place.

Chris

Am 13.06.17, 00:49 schrieb "Dave Fisher" <[hidden email]>:

    Hi -
   
    > On Jun 12, 2017, at 12:41 PM, Alex Harui <[hidden email]> wrote:
    >
    > I'm confused.  Can I get a summary?
    >
    > Are there some files that are being caught by RAT?  If so, what are they?
    >
    > Are we sure the process should be that the RM should switch away from
    > SNAPSHOT before the vote?  If a major problem is found in that RC,
    > wouldn't we have deployed bad artifacts under the final version number and
    > have to pull them back?  Or abandon that release version and use the next
    > version number?
   
    The Tomcat project will user version numbers. If a version fails then they advance to the next. They still produce changelings for the version that is not released. You can see the gory details for version 7 here: http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/changelog.html
   
    Regards,
    Dave
   
    >
    > IMO, the main thing folks want from Maven are the JARs which aren't an
    > official ASF release anyway.  Seems like we should vote on a source
    > package, then set any version numbers and have Maven build the final jars
    > from there.  The differences in the source should only be in POMs and
    > other configs right?
    >
    > What am I missing?
    > -Alex
    >
    > On 6/12/17, 3:53 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <[hidden email]> wrote:
    >
    >> It should be between the Last call and opening the vote. It is equal to
    >> “cutting the release candidate”.
    >>
    >> So, the LAST CALL thread is finished and the RM writes that he’s going to
    >> cut a release … AFTER THAT he does these steps and THEN he opens the vote
    >> thread. I never said anything else than that.
    >>
    >> Chris
    >>
    >>
    >> Am 12.06.17, 12:30 schrieb "piotrz" <[hidden email]>:
    >>
    >>   Chris,
    >>
    >>   I'm a bit confused. You have said that I shouldn't do this as part of
    >>   VOTING, LAST CALL:
    >>
    >>   "No,
    >>
    >>   The removing the SNAPSHOT, tagging and setting the new version should
    >> be,
    >>   more or less, one step.
    >>   "
    >>
    >>   Now you are saying just opposite. So again when I should do this
    >> (Last Call,
    >>   Voting) step ?
    >>
    >>   "1) In order to have a proper Maven release, the versions of the
    >> maven build
    >>   should be changed to “0.8.0” (omit the SNAPSHOT). "
    >>
    >>   Piotr
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>   -----
    >>   Apache Flex PMC
    >>   [hidden email]
    >>   --
    >>   View this message in context:
    >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-fle
    >> x-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com%2FDISCUSS-Discuss-Release-Apache-FlexJ
    >> S-0-8-0-RC1-tp62274p62341.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C764b156340ed4161762808d4b
    >> 1813b7a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636328616008847001&sd
    >> ata=pnXSK31V8HvCRI9NlEVlGD0SgCczOCQYlw0PyoVZnfQ%3D&reserved=0
    >>   Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at
    >> Nabble.com.
    >>
    >>
    >
   
   

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.8.0 RC1

Christofer Dutz
By the way … why is this directory called “flex-typedefs” and not “flexjs-typedefs”?

Chris

Am 13.06.17, 08:55 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <[hidden email]>:

    Hi all,
   
    Please don’t let this become another license discussion … I thought that had been settled. I intentionally added that this was a technical issue in my report.
    If the flexjs-typedefs directory is going to be included in the compiler package, the compiler packages pom needs an exclusion for the flexjs-typedefs directory to avoid any problems like this. The content of the flesjs-typedefs directory will be checked by the flexjs-typedefs build so in the end all is checked. I’m just going to do this little tweak myself so if a new release candidate is created, we have this “fix” in place.
   
    Chris
   
    Am 13.06.17, 00:49 schrieb "Dave Fisher" <[hidden email]>:
   
        Hi -
       
        > On Jun 12, 2017, at 12:41 PM, Alex Harui <[hidden email]> wrote:
        >
        > I'm confused.  Can I get a summary?
        >
        > Are there some files that are being caught by RAT?  If so, what are they?
        >
        > Are we sure the process should be that the RM should switch away from
        > SNAPSHOT before the vote?  If a major problem is found in that RC,
        > wouldn't we have deployed bad artifacts under the final version number and
        > have to pull them back?  Or abandon that release version and use the next
        > version number?
       
        The Tomcat project will user version numbers. If a version fails then they advance to the next. They still produce changelings for the version that is not released. You can see the gory details for version 7 here: http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/changelog.html
       
        Regards,
        Dave
       
        >
        > IMO, the main thing folks want from Maven are the JARs which aren't an
        > official ASF release anyway.  Seems like we should vote on a source
        > package, then set any version numbers and have Maven build the final jars
        > from there.  The differences in the source should only be in POMs and
        > other configs right?
        >
        > What am I missing?
        > -Alex
        >
        > On 6/12/17, 3:53 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <[hidden email]> wrote:
        >
        >> It should be between the Last call and opening the vote. It is equal to
        >> “cutting the release candidate”.
        >>
        >> So, the LAST CALL thread is finished and the RM writes that he’s going to
        >> cut a release … AFTER THAT he does these steps and THEN he opens the vote
        >> thread. I never said anything else than that.
        >>
        >> Chris
        >>
        >>
        >> Am 12.06.17, 12:30 schrieb "piotrz" <[hidden email]>:
        >>
        >>   Chris,
        >>
        >>   I'm a bit confused. You have said that I shouldn't do this as part of
        >>   VOTING, LAST CALL:
        >>
        >>   "No,
        >>
        >>   The removing the SNAPSHOT, tagging and setting the new version should
        >> be,
        >>   more or less, one step.
        >>   "
        >>
        >>   Now you are saying just opposite. So again when I should do this
        >> (Last Call,
        >>   Voting) step ?
        >>
        >>   "1) In order to have a proper Maven release, the versions of the
        >> maven build
        >>   should be changed to “0.8.0” (omit the SNAPSHOT). "
        >>
        >>   Piotr
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>   -----
        >>   Apache Flex PMC
        >>   [hidden email]
        >>   --
        >>   View this message in context:
        >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-fle
        >> x-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com%2FDISCUSS-Discuss-Release-Apache-FlexJ
        >> S-0-8-0-RC1-tp62274p62341.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C764b156340ed4161762808d4b
        >> 1813b7a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636328616008847001&sd
        >> ata=pnXSK31V8HvCRI9NlEVlGD0SgCczOCQYlw0PyoVZnfQ%3D&reserved=0
        >>   Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at
        >> Nabble.com.
        >>
        >>
        >
       
       
   
   

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.8.0 RC1

Harbs
All Flex project repos are prefixed with flex-

> On Jun 13, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Christofer Dutz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> By the way … why is this directory called “flex-typedefs” and not “flexjs-typedefs”?
>
> Chris
>
> Am 13.06.17, 08:55 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <[hidden email]>:
>
>    Hi all,
>
>    Please don’t let this become another license discussion … I thought that had been settled. I intentionally added that this was a technical issue in my report.
>    If the flexjs-typedefs directory is going to be included in the compiler package, the compiler packages pom needs an exclusion for the flexjs-typedefs directory to avoid any problems like this. The content of the flesjs-typedefs directory will be checked by the flexjs-typedefs build so in the end all is checked. I’m just going to do this little tweak myself so if a new release candidate is created, we have this “fix” in place.
>
>    Chris
>
>    Am 13.06.17, 00:49 schrieb "Dave Fisher" <[hidden email]>:
>
>        Hi -
>
>> On Jun 12, 2017, at 12:41 PM, Alex Harui <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I'm confused.  Can I get a summary?
>>
>> Are there some files that are being caught by RAT?  If so, what are they?
>>
>> Are we sure the process should be that the RM should switch away from
>> SNAPSHOT before the vote?  If a major problem is found in that RC,
>> wouldn't we have deployed bad artifacts under the final version number and
>> have to pull them back?  Or abandon that release version and use the next
>> version number?
>
>        The Tomcat project will user version numbers. If a version fails then they advance to the next. They still produce changelings for the version that is not released. You can see the gory details for version 7 here: http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/changelog.html
>
>        Regards,
>        Dave
>
>>
>> IMO, the main thing folks want from Maven are the JARs which aren't an
>> official ASF release anyway.  Seems like we should vote on a source
>> package, then set any version numbers and have Maven build the final jars
>> from there.  The differences in the source should only be in POMs and
>> other configs right?
>>
>> What am I missing?
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 6/12/17, 3:53 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> It should be between the Last call and opening the vote. It is equal to
>>> “cutting the release candidate”.
>>>
>>> So, the LAST CALL thread is finished and the RM writes that he’s going to
>>> cut a release … AFTER THAT he does these steps and THEN he opens the vote
>>> thread. I never said anything else than that.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 12.06.17, 12:30 schrieb "piotrz" <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>>  Chris,
>>>
>>>  I'm a bit confused. You have said that I shouldn't do this as part of
>>>  VOTING, LAST CALL:
>>>
>>>  "No,
>>>
>>>  The removing the SNAPSHOT, tagging and setting the new version should
>>> be,
>>>  more or less, one step.
>>>  "
>>>
>>>  Now you are saying just opposite. So again when I should do this
>>> (Last Call,
>>>  Voting) step ?
>>>
>>>  "1) In order to have a proper Maven release, the versions of the
>>> maven build
>>>  should be changed to “0.8.0” (omit the SNAPSHOT). "
>>>
>>>  Piotr
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  -----
>>>  Apache Flex PMC
>>>  [hidden email]
>>>  --
>>>  View this message in context:
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-fle
>>> x-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com%2FDISCUSS-Discuss-Release-Apache-FlexJ
>>> S-0-8-0-RC1-tp62274p62341.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C764b156340ed4161762808d4b
>>> 1813b7a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636328616008847001&sd
>>> ata=pnXSK31V8HvCRI9NlEVlGD0SgCczOCQYlw0PyoVZnfQ%3D&reserved=0
>>>  Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at
>>> Nabble.com.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

12345