commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
Subject Re: [ALL] Valid reasons for blocking a release?
Date Fri, 16 Sep 2016 08:00:14 GMT
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 09:20:14 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Gilles 
> <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 07:41:01 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>>> "I'd rather not redo the release steps just for files that are
>>> meaningful only when browsing the code repository mirror at
>>> Github."
>>>
>>> I know our release process is a pain, so maybe we should see if we 
>>> can
>>> improve it. This needs a separate thread.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not the one who complains regularly that the release process
>> is a "nightmare".
>> It was when I did RM CM some years ago and found that some of the
>> instructions just did not work.  And that what worked either was
>> not mentioned (only those who "knew" could RM) or was the second
>> or third alternative way.
>>
>> For newbies (and everyone else from your own words), that was
>> indeed the nightmare.
>>
>> I thus initiated a single-step-by-single-step "howto" for CM that
>> did work.
>> And that should have been updated whenever something had to change
>> to make a release successful.
>>
>> Who decided that "README.md" and "CONTRIBUTING.md" _had_ to be part
>> of the distribution files?
>>
>> Did we vote on that?
>>
>> It's rare to release without more than one RC.
>>>
>>
>> You'd have to wonder why.
>> "Our release process is a nightmare" is not an answer to that 
>> question.
>>
>> That the instructions which many RM follow are so poor that a single
>> RC is rare is no reason to infer that any release should suffer from
>> the same bias.
>>
>> It looks pretty lame IMO if the first thing you see, our site or 
>> github, is
>>> wrong or missing info. It could make one wonder about overall 
>>> attention to
>>> detail...
>>>
>>
>> Nothing _looks_ lame.
>>
>
> Ahem, the site:
>
> https://home.apache.org/~erans/commons-rng-1.0-RC1-site/
>
> says:
>
> "*There isn't any release yet.*
> Work is currently performed actively towards release 1.0: See our
> issue-tracking system. <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RNG-6>"
>
> The site reflects what to expect from the sources, like the reports.
>
> If I checkout the 1.0 source tag (or src zip) and build it, I'm going 
> to
> think right away that I got the WRONG tag or wrong src zip because it 
> says
> so on the tin "*There isn't any release yet."*

What's the point of coming back to something which I acknowledged
when you noticed it the first time:
   http://markmail.org/message/wrdtdaruxzpumrbz
?

Is the site a valid reason?
IMO, no, because it can broken and fixed at any time, not in
relation with a release.

If you think otherwise, then we should set up a vote every time
someone wants to upgrade the web site.

The site is a best effort service for users, not a source release.


Gilles


> Gary
>
>
>
>> The files are there, to fill their role on Github and on Apache!
>>
>> Stian just noticed that they were missing from the distribution
>> files, and in _that_ context (e.g. someone who want to compile
>> from source), they do not have any purpose.
>>
>> Please check your facts before using such a word: I can happily
>> take that I'm not an expert on random number generators but not
>> so happily that I don't pay attention to the detail.
>>
>> I will prepare RC2, but I find it totally disproportionate, as
>> there was strictly no reason to do it.
>>
>>
>> Gilles
>>
>> Gary
>>>
>>> On Sep 14, 2016 7:32 AM, "Gilles" <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 14:53:29 +0100, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 14 September 2016 at 10:14, Gilles 
>>>> <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a [VOTE] for releasing Apache Commons Rng 1.0 (from RC1).
>>>>>> Commit ID the tag points at:
>>>>>>   f8d23082607b9f2c7be7f489eb09627722440ee5
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, Gilles!
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm afraid my vote is: -0 as the source zip is missing README.md 
>>>>> and
>>>>> CONTRIBUTING.md and the site is not updated.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The site can, and will be fixed, "live" (as it must be done anyway 
>>>> for
>>>> the link to the Javadoc, see below).
>>>>
>>>> Everything else looks
>>>>
>>>>> good though!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Checked:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 checksums
>>>>> +1 signatures
>>>>> +1 source zip vs tar.gz
>>>>> +1 binaries zip vs tar.gz
>>>>> +1 mvn apache-rat:check (if using ignores from <reporting>)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I don't understand the "if" clause.
>>>> Report is clean when generated as part of "mvn site".
>>>>
>>>> +1 maven repo matches source (on -src.tar, -src.zip)
>>>>
>>>>> +1 mvn clean install
>>>>> +1 LICENSE/NOTICE
>>>>> +1 javadoc
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://home.apache.org/~erans/commons-rng-1.0-RC1-site/apido
>>>>> cs/index.html
>>>>> +1 RELEASE-NOTES  (Should it mention that this was in math 
>>>>> before?)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No point IMHO.
>>>> There isn't a single file that was not significantly changed
>>>> and most are new.
>>>>
>>>> It was developed within the CM repository but the code was never
>>>> released as part of CM.
>>>>
>>>> -1 git tag vs source zip
>>>>
>>>>>    source zip is missing README.md and CONTRIBUTING.md (and doc, 
>>>>> which
>>>>> I think it's correct to exclude)
>>>>> -1 binaries vs source
>>>>>     binaries zip is missing README.md and CONTRIBUTING.md (and 
>>>>> doc,
>>>>> which I think it's correct to exclude)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Are those a mandatory part of the distribution?
>>>> Commons Math was never released with those files.
>>>>
>>>> I'd rather not redo the release steps just for files that are
>>>> meaningful only when browsing the code repository mirror at
>>>> Github.
>>>>
>>>> -1 README missing from both source and bniaries
>>>>
>>>>> -1 site stlil says "There isn't any release yet" etc on front 
>>>>> page.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> This was noticed by Gary.
>>>> The site is not part of the release and can be fixed anytime 
>>>> (which
>>>> I'll do before the announcement).
>>>>
>>>> "Javadoc 1.0" link in menu is broken.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> That is always the case; it is also to be fixed when the files are
>>>> in their proper place (i.e. not in the RM's "~/public_html").
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Gilles
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tested with
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> $ mvn -v
>>>>> Apache Maven 3.3.9 (bb52d8502b132ec0a5a3f4c09453c07478323dc5;
>>>>> 2015-11-10T16:41:47+00:00)
>>>>> Maven home: /home/stain/software/maven
>>>>> Java version: 1.8.0_91, vendor: Oracle Corporation
>>>>> Java home: /usr/lib/jvm/java-8-openjdk-amd64/jre
>>>>> Default locale: en_GB, platform encoding: UTF-8
>>>>> OS name: "linux", version: "4.4.0-36-generic", arch: "amd64", 
>>>>> family:
>>>>> "unix"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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
>>
>>


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


Mime
View raw message