commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niall Pemberton <niall.pember...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Release process WAS [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Codec 1.5-RC1
Date Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:02:37 GMT
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
>  After another nightmare by an RM who has not cut a release in a
> while, I think we need to do something.  The documentation on the
> Commons web pages describes a process that works.  I suggest that we
> standardize on that process, adding some simple automation scripts
> that RMs can choose to use or not to use for the manual steps and
> stop fussing with Nexus or the maven release plugin.  I cut an RC
> last night in 25 minutes (about 15 of which were spent waiting for
> the [pool] tests to complete) and will likely spend about that same
> amount of time deploying the artifacts to dist/ and what remains of
> our simple, file-and-directory-based replication infrastructure to
> get maven artifacts pushed to the maven repos.  I do use a simple
> shell script to manage invoking the maven commands and copying files
> around to reduce the required time from, say an hour, to 25
> minutes.  The script is in svn.
>
> I prefer the "manual" approach for the following reasons:
>
> 1.  I know what it does.  Exactly, every time.  I know that exactly
> the binaries that we vote on get deployed to dist/ and exactly the
> committed tag is used to build everything.  The process includes
> local generation of artifacts that I can inspect and test locally
> and verify sigs.  I know at each step exactly what is being pushed
> where.
>
> 2.  I know that it works.  Every time.  No pom-tweaking,
> plugin-munging or other half-success management required.
>
> 3.  It has no commercial / proprietary dependencies.  The scripts
> are optional and are in any case, ASF-licensed, committed to svn.
>
> I know others have different opinions on this.  It could be we need
> to support both ways of cutting releases.

AIUI then the deployment to the maven repository is either by dropping
the artifacts manually in
http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository/ OR by using
Nexus. I think once a component switches to Nexus, then the manual
process doesn't work.

Niall

>  I would ask, however,
> that those arguing for the "automagical" approach take a hard look
> at how many volunteer hours are being spent trying to get
> maven/nexus to be a release manager and how comparatively little
> time those of us who take the "manual" approach spend getting our
> releases built and deployed.  While I certainly can't claim to
> produce perfect artifacts (much less code :), I will also point out
> that the only major release quality problem that we have had
> recently was the inadvertent release of a [net] version while
> fiddling with the release plugin.  I don't at all buy the argument
> that the manual approach is "error-prone" as it allows more and
> better opportunities for inspection by the RM and community at each
> stage.




> Phil

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message