commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
Subject Re: [Math] What's in a release
Date Tue, 30 Dec 2014 01:57:13 GMT
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 02:36:24 +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Am Tue, 30 Dec 2014 02:29:38 +0100
> schrieb Gilles <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 02:09:42 +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>> > That thread gets deep. :)
>> >
>> > I just wanted to comment on "releasing only
>> > source is faster because of less checks". I disagree with that, 
>> most
>> > release delay/time is due to preparation work. Failed (binary)
>> > checks are typically for a reason which would also be present in
>> > the source (especially the POM), so it does not really reduce the
>> > number of rework.
>>
>> RM is a streamlined procedure: so, if you do (say) 10 steps rather
>> than 15, it will objectively take less time, and this is compounded
>> by the additional tests which should (ideally) be performed by the
>> reviewers. [Thus delaying the release.]
>
> The problem is not the small additional time for the last 5 steps but
> the large time for redoing all steps (on veto).

That's not my experience. [I particularly hated to have to delete
manually some files inside Nexus: Wrong click, and up for another
round... :-/]
Moreover, most of the initial tasks are shared between the active
contributors (committing pending patches, cleaing up code, evaluating
pending issues).  And the collective effort is hopefully triggered by
the perspective of the release.

>> > (At least not in most cases, so two votes will actually make us
>> > more work not less).
>>
>> The additional work exactly amounts to sending _one_ additional 
>> mail.
>
> The actual work is not the vote mail but the people doing the
> preparation and the review.

Yes, and that is _exactly_ the same work because the total work for
the two steps combined is the sum of each of the steps! ;-)

>>
>> Then, as I noted,
>>   * some releases will be done as before (same work)
>>   * some releases will be "source only" (less work)
>
> Not much, you still have to check if the source actually works and 
> can
> be build, produces sane archives and so on.

Well, no. Source-only is source-only; sane compilation is always
implicitly checked by the "test" target, which is the minimum
required to ensure that the source is OK.

>
>>   * some releases will be two-steps, possibly performed by two
>> different people (i.e. less work for each RM)
>
> And more work in sum, not only for the RMs but also the reviewers. 
> (and
> the users which want to use the source release with maven like 
> anybody
> there days)

I'd expect that most source would come with "convenience" binaries.
The main point is that some "official" release can be provided more
quickly if the circumstance would require it (e.g. urgent bug fix or
new feature for a user who would be satisfied with a source release).

> But I dont mind, if a project wants to do a source release only, 
> thats
> fine with me, I just don't see the advantage.

In one word: Flexibility.

Gilles

>
> Gruss
> Bernd
>
>>
>> Of course, each release means some work has to be done; then IIUC 
>> your
>> point, the fewer releases the better. :-}
>>
>>
>
>> >  Am Tue, 30 Dec 2014 02:05:29
>> > +0100 schrieb Gilles <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 10:54:59 +0000, sebb wrote:
>> >> > On 29 December 2014 at 10:36, Gilles
>> >> <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 20:21:32 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On 12/28/14 11:46 AM, Gilles wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Hi.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 09:43:34 +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Le 28/12/2014 00:22, sebb a écrit :
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> On 27 December 2014 at 22:19, Gilles
>> >> >>>>>> <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2014 17:48:05 +0000, sebb wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> On 24 December 2014 at 15:11, Gilles
>> >> >>>>>>>> <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2014 15:52:12 +0100,
Luc Maisonobe 
>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Le 24/12/2014 15:04, Gilles a écrit
:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2014 09:31:46
+0100, Luc Maisonobe
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Le 24/12/2014 03:36, Gilles
a écrit :
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2014
14:02:40 +0100, luc wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a [VOTE]
for releasing Apache Commons Math
>> >> 3.4
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from release
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> candidate 3.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tag name:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   MATH_3_4_RC3
(signature can be checked from git
>> >> using
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'git tag
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -v')
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tag URL:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> 
>> <https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-math.git;a=commit;h=befd8ebd96b8ef5a06b59dccb22bd55064e31c34>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there a way to check
that the source code
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> referred
>> >> to
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> above
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> was the one used to
create the JAR of the ".class"
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> files. [Out of curiosity,
not suspicion, of
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> course...]
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you can look at the
end of the
>> >> META-INF/MANIFEST.MS
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> file embedded
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> in the jar. The second-to-last
entry is called
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Implementation-Build.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> It
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> is automatically created
by
>> >> maven-jgit-buildnumber-plugin
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> and contains
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> the SHA1 identifier of
the last commit used for the
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> build. Here, is is
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> befd8ebd96b8ef5a06b59dccb22bd55064e31c34,
so we can
>> >> check
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> it really
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> corresponds to the expected
status of the git
>> >> repository.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Can this be considered "secure",
i.e. can't this 
>> entry
>> >> in
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> the MANIFEST
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> file be modified to be the
checksum of the repository
>> >> but
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> with the
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> .class
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> files being substitued with
those coming from another
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> compilation?
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Modifying anything in the jar (either
this entry 
>> within
>> >> the
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> manifest or
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> any class) will modify the jar
signature. So as long 
>> as
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> people do check
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> the global MD5, SHA1 or gpg signature
we provide with
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> our build, they
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> are safe to assume the artifacts
are Apache artifacts.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> This is not different from how
releases are done with
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> subversion as the
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> source code control system, or
even in C or C++ as the
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> language. At one
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> time, the release manager does
perform a compilation 
>> and
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> the fellow
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> reviewers check the result. There
is no fullproof
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> process here, as
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> always when security is involved.
Even using an
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> automated build and
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> automatic signing on an Apache
server would involve
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> trust (i.e. one
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> should assume that the server has
not been tampered
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> with, that the build
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> process really does what it is
expected to do, that 
>> the
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> artifacts put to
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> review are really the one created
by the automatic
>> >> process
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> ...).
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Another point is that what we officially
release is 
>> the
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> source, which
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> can be reviewed by external users.
The binary parts 
>> are
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> merely a
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> convenience.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> That's an interesting point to come
back to since it
>> >> >>>>>>>>> looks like the
>> >> >>>>>>>>> most time-consuming part of a release
is not related to
>> >> the
>> >> >>>>>>>>> sources!
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Isn't it conceivable that a release
could just be a
>> >> >>>>>>>>> commit identifier
>> >> >>>>>>>>> and a checksum of the repository?
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> If the binaries are a just a convenience,
why put so 
>> much
>> >> >>>>>>>>> effort in it?
>> >> >>>>>>>>> As a convenience, the artefacts could
be produced after
>> >> the
>> >> >>>>>>>>> release,
>> >> >>>>>>>>> accompanied with all the "caveat" notes
which you
>> >> mentioned.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> That would certainly increase the release
rate.
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> Binary releases still need to be reviewed
to ensure that
>> >> the
>> >> >>>>>>>> correct N
>> >> >>>>>>>> & L files are present, and that the
archives don't 
>> contain
>> >> >>>>>>>> material
>> >> >>>>>>>> with disallowed licenses.
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> It's not unknown for automated build processes
to 
>> include
>> >> >>>>>>>> files that
>> >> >>>>>>>> should not be present.
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> I fail to see the difference of principle between
the
>> >> >>>>>>> "release" context
>> >> >>>>>>> and, say, the daily snapshot context.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Snapshots are not (should not) be promoted to the
general
>> >> >>>>>> public as
>> >> >>>>>> releases of the ASF.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> What I mean is that there seem to be a contradiction
>> >> >>>>>>> between saying that
>> >> >>>>>>> a "release" is only about _source_ and the
obligation to
>> >> check
>> >> >>>>>>> _binaries_.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> There is no contradiction here.
>> >> >>>>>> The ASF releases source, they are required in a
release.
>> >> >>>>>> Binaries are optional.
>> >> >>>>>> That does not mean that the ASF mirror system can
be used 
>> to
>> >> >>>>>> distribute arbitrary binaries.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> It can occur that disallowed material is, at
some point 
>> in
>> >> >>>>>>> time, part of
>> >> >>>>>>> the repository and/or the snapshot binaries.
>> >> >>>>>>> However, what is forbidden is... forbidden,
at all times.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> As with most things, this is not a strict dichotomy.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> If it is indeed a problem to distribute forbidden

>> material,
>> >> >>>>>>> shouldn't
>> >> >>>>>>> this be corrected in the repository? [That's
indeed what
>> >> >>>>>>> you did with
>> >> >>>>>>> the blocking of the release.]
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> If the repo is discovered to contain disallowed
material, 
>> it
>> >> >>>>>> needs to
>> >> >>>>>> be removed.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> Then again, once the repository is "clean",
it can be
>> >> >>>>>>> tagged and that
>> >> >>>>>>> tagged _source_ is the release.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Not quite.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> A release is a source archive that is voted on
and
>> >> distributed
>> >> >>>>>> via the
>> >> >>>>>> ASF mirror system.
>> >> >>>>>> The contents must agree with the source tag, but
the 
>> source
>> >> tag
>> >> >>>>>> is not
>> >> >>>>>> the release.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> Non-compliant binaries would thus only be the
result of a
>> >> >>>>>>> "mistake"
>> >> >>>>>>> (if the build system is flawed, it's another
problem,
>> >> >>>>>>> unrelated to
>> >> >>>>>>> the released contents, which is _source_) to
be corrected
>> >> per
>> >> >>>>>>> se.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Not so. There are other failure modes.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> An automated build obviously reduces the chances
of
>> >> >>>>>> mistakes, but it
>> >> >>>>>> can still create an archive containing files that
should
>> >> >>>>>> not
>> >> be
>> >> >>>>>> there.
>> >> >>>>>> [Or indeed, omits files that should be present]
>> >> >>>>>> For example, the workspace contains spurious files
which 
>> are
>> >> >>>>>> implicitly included by the assembly instructions.
>> >> >>>>>> Or the build process creates spurious files that
are
>> >> >>>>>> incorrectly added
>> >> >>>>>> to the archive.
>> >> >>>>>> Or the build incorrectly includes jars that are
supposed 
>> to
>> >> be
>> >> >>>>>> provided by the end user
>> >> >>>>>> etc.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> I have seen all the above in RC votes.
>> >> >>>>>> There are probably other falure modes.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> My proposition is that it's an independent
step: once the
>> >> >>>>>>> build system is adjusted to the expectations,
"correct"
>> >> >>>>>>> binaries can be
>> >> >>>>>>> generated from the same tagged release.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> It does not matter when the binary is built.
>> >> >>>>>> If it is distributed by the PMC as a formal release,
it 
>> must
>> >> >>>>>> not contain any surprises, e.g. it must be licensed
under
>> >> >>>>>> the AL.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> It is therefore vital that the contents are as
expected 
>> from
>> >> >>>>>> the build.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Note also that a formal release becomes an act
of the PMC 
>> by
>> >> >>>>>> the voting process.
>> >> >>>>>> The ASF can then assume responsibility for any
legal 
>> issues
>> >> >>>>>> that may arise.
>> >> >>>>>> Otherwise it is entirely the personal responsibility
of 
>> the
>> >> >>>>>> person who
>> >> >>>>>> releases it.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> I think the last two points are really important: binaries
>> >> must
>> >> >>>>> be
>> >> >>>>> checked and the foundation provides a legal protection
for
>> >> >>>>> the project
>> >> >>>>> if something weird occurs.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> I also think another point is important: many if not
most
>> >> users
>> >> >>>>> do
>> >> >>>>> really expect binaries and not source. From our internal
>> >> Apache
>> >> >>>>> point
>> >> >>>>> of view, these are a by-product,. For many others it
is the
>> >> >>>>> important
>> >> >>>>> thing. It is mostly true in maven land as dependencies
are
>> >> >>>>> automatically retrieved in binary form, not source
form. So
>> >> the
>> >> >>>>> maven
>> >> >>>>> central repository as a distribution system is important.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Even if for some security reason it sounds at first
thought
>> >> >>>>> logical to
>> >> >>>>> rely on source only and compile oneself, in an industrial
>> >> >>>>> context project teams do not have enough time to do
it for
>> >> >>>>> all their dependencies, so they use binaries provided
by
>> >> >>>>> trusted third parties. A
>> >> >>>>> long time ago, I compiled a lot of free software tools
for
>> >> >>>>> the department I worked for at that time. I do not
do this
>> >> anymore,
>> >> >>>>> and
>> >> >>>>> trust the binaries provided by the packaging team for
a
>> >> >>>>> distribution
>> >> >>>>> (typically Debian). They do rely on source and compile
>> >> >>>>> themselves. Hey,
>> >> >>>>> I even think Emmanuel here belongs to the Debian java
>> >> >>>>> team ;-)
>> >> I
>> >> >>>>> guess
>> >> >>>>> such teams that do rely on source are rather the exception
>> >> than
>> >> >>>>> the
>> >> >>>>> rule. The other examples I can think of are packaging

>> teams,
>> >> >>>>> development teams that need bleeding edge (and will
also
>> >> >>>>> directly depend on the repository, not even the release),
>> >> >>>>> projects that need to
>> >> >>>>> introduce their own patches and people who have critical
>> >> >>>>> needs (for
>> >> >>>>> example when safety of people is concerned or when
they 
>> need
>> >> >>>>> full control for legal or contractual reasons). Many
other
>> >> >>>>> people download
>> >> >>>>> binaries directly and would simply not consider using
a
>> >> project
>> >> >>>>> if it
>> >> >>>>> is not readily available: they don't have time for
this and
>> >> >>>>> don't want
>> >> >>>>> to learn how to build tens or hundred of different
projects
>> >> they
>> >> >>>>> simply
>> >> >>>>> use.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> I do not disagree with anything said on this thread. [In
>> >> >>>> particular, I
>> >> >>>> did not at all imply that any one committer could take
>> >> >>>> responsibility
>> >> >>>> for releasing unchecked items.]
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> I'm simply suggesting that what is called the release
>> >> >>>> process/management
>> >> >>>> could be made simpler (and _consequently_ could lead to
more
>> >> >>>> regularly
>> >> >>>> releasing the CM code), by separating the concerns.
>> >> >>>> The concerns are
>> >> >>>>  1. "code" (the contents), and
>> >> >>>>  2. "artefacts" (the result of the build system acting
on 
>> the
>> >> >>>> "code").
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Checking of one of these is largely independent from 
>> checking
>> >> the
>> >> >>>> other.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Unfortunately, not really.  One principle that we have (maybe
>> >> not
>> >> >>> crystal clear in the release doco) is that when we do
>> >> >>> distribute binaries, they should really be "convenience
>> >> >>> binaries" which
>> >> means
>> >> >>> that everything needed to create them is in the source or its
>> >> >>> documented dependencies.  What that means is that what we tag
>> >> >>> as the
>> >> >>> source release needs to be able to generate any binaries that
>> >> >>> we subsequently release.  The only way to really test that
is
>> >> >>> to generate the binaries and inspect them as part of 
>> verifying
>> >> >>> the release.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Only way?  That's certainly not obvious to me: Since a
>> >> >> tag/branch uniquely identifies a set of files, that is, the
>> >> >> "source release [that
>> >> >> is] able to generate any binaries that we subsequently 
>> release",
>> >> >> if a
>> >> >> RM can do it at (source) release time, he (or someone else!) 
>> can
>> >> >> do it
>> >> >> later, too (by running the build from a clone of the 
>> repository
>> >> in
>> >> >> its
>> >> >> tagged state).
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> As others have pointed out, anything we release has to be
>> >> verified
>> >> >>> and voted on.  As RM and reviewer, I think it is actually
>> >> >>> easier to roll and verify source and binaries together.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > +1
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's precisely my main point.
>> >> >> I won't dispute that you can prefer doing both (and nobody 
>> would
>> >> >> forbid
>> >> >> a RM to do just that) but the point is about the possibility 
>> to
>> >> >> release
>> >> >> source-only code (as the first step of a two-step procedure
>> >> >> which
>> >> I
>> >> >> described earlier).
>> >> >> [IMHO, the two-step one seems easier (both for the RM and the
>> >> >> reviewer),
>> >> >> (mileage does vary).]
>> >> >
>> >> > What is easier?
>> >> > It seems to me there will be at least one other step in your
>> >> > proposed process, i.e. a second VOTE e-mail
>> >>
>> >> Yes, that's obviously what I meant:
>> >> Two steps == two votes
>> >>
>> >> [But: source releases need not necessarily be accompanied with
>> >> "binaries", which, I imagine, could lead to official releases
>> >> occurring more often (due to the reduced number of checks).]
>> >>
>> >> > These will both contain most of the same information.
>> >>
>> >> No.
>> >> The first step is about the source, i.e. the code which humans
>> >> create.
>> >> The second step is about the files which a build system creates.
>> >>
>> >> As I indicated previously, the first vote will be about a set of
>> >> reviewers being satisfied with the state of the souce code, while
>> >> the second vote will be about another set of reviewers being
>> >> satisfied
>> >> with the results of the build system ("no glitch", as you 
>> described
>> >> in an earlier message).
>> >>
>> >> > Is the intention to announce the source release separately from
>> >> the
>> >> > binary release?
>> >> > If so, there will need to be 2 announce mails, and 2 updates to
>> >> the
>> >> > download page.
>> >>
>> >> Is there a problem with that?
>> >> There are actually several possible cases (depending on the will 
>> of
>> >> the RM):
>> >>   * one-step release (only source code)
>> >>   * two-steps (source, then binaries based on that source)
>> >>   * combined (as is done up to now)
>> >>   * binaries (based on any previously released source)
>> >>
>> >> >> In short is it forbidden (by the official/legal rules of ASF) 
>> to
>> >> >> proceed
>> >> >> as I propose?
>> >> >
>> >> > Dunno, depends on what exactly you are proposing.
>> >>
>> >> Cf. above (and previous mails).
>> >>
>> >> In practice the release could (IIUC) be like the link provided
>> >> by Luc in RC1 of CM 3.4 (whose target was a TAR of the tagged
>> >> repository).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> It is impossible technically?
>> >> >
>> >> > Currently the Maven build process creates:
>> >> > - Maven source and binary jars
>> >> > - ASF source and binary bundles
>> >>
>> >> AFAIU, the JARs (source and binary) are "binaries", the binary
>> >> bundles are "binaries". Only the ASF source is "source".
>> >>
>> >> > It's not clear to me what exactly you propose to release in 
>> stage
>> >> > one,
>> >>
>> >> The ASF source (e.g. in the form of a tarball, or the appropriate
>> >> "git clone" command).
>> >>
>> >> > but there will need to be some changes to the process in order 
>> to
>> >> > release just the ASF source.
>> >>
>> >> I don't see which.
>> >> A "source RM" would just stop the process after
>> >> resolving/postponing the pending issues, and checking the various
>> >> reports about the source
>> >> code. [Then create the tag, and request a vote.]
>> >>
>> >> A "binary RM" would take on from that point (a tagged 
>> repository),
>> >> i.e. create all the binaries, sign them, etc.
>> >>
>> >> > There is no point releasing the Maven source jars separately 
>> from
>> >> > the binary jars; they are not complete as they only contain 
>> java
>> >> > files for
>> >> > use with IDEs.
>> >>
>> >> I don't understand that.
>> >> In principle, a JAR with the Java sources is indeed the necessary
>> >> and
>> >> sufficient condition for users to create the executable bytecode,
>> >> with
>> >> whatever build system they wish.
>> >> But I agree that it's not useful to not release all the files
>> >> needed to easily run maven. [And, for convenience, a source
>> >> release would be
>> >> accompanied with instructions on how to build a JAR of the 
>> compiled
>> >> classes, using maven.]
>> >>
>> >> > But in any case, AFAIK it is very tricky to release new files
>> >> > into an existing Maven folder, and it may cause problems for 
>> end
>> >> > users.
>> >>
>> >> I don't understand what you mean by "release new files into an
>> >> existing Maven folder"...
>> >>
>> >> Gilles
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Phil
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> [The more so that, as you said, no fool-proof link between

>> the
>> >> >>>> two can
>> >> >>>> be ensured: From a security POV, checking the former 
>> requires
>> >> >>>> a code
>> >> >>>> review, while using the latter requires trust in the build
>> >> >>>> system.]
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Thus we could release the "code", after checking and voting

>> on
>> >> >>>> the concerned elements (i.e. the repository state
>> >> >>>> corresponding to a specific tag + the web site).
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Then we could release the "binaries", as a convenience,

>> after
>> >> >>>> checking
>> >> >>>> and voting on the concerned elements (i.e. the files about

>> to
>> >> be
>> >> >>>> distributed).
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> I think that it's an added flexibility that would, for
>> >> >>>> example, allow
>> >> >>>> the tagging of the repository without necessarily release
>> >> >>>> binaries (i.e.
>> >> >>>> not involving that part of the work); and to release 
>> binaries
>> >> >>>> (say, at
>> >> >>>> regular intervals) based on the latest tagged code (i.e.
not
>> >> >>>> involving
>> >> >>>> the work about solving/evaluating/postponing issues).
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> [I completely admit that, at first, it might look a little
>> >> >>>> more confusing for the plain user, but (IIUC) it would
be a
>> >> >>>> better representation of the reality covered by stating
that
>> >> >>>> the ASF releases source code.]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


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


Mime
View raw message