edgent-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
Subject Re: reproducible release process
Date Thu, 04 Jan 2018 07:25:47 GMT
Hi Dale,

that’s unfortunate that you had that many problems … I have to admit that the branch operation
directly pushes was new to me … the prepare operation shouldn’t and the perform should
only checkout. BUT I do know that for all the data in the scm management block of the pom
is important. So, you should have forked, updated the scm information to your fork and then
executed the operations. 

Regarding the questions, the plugin asks: 
“new working copy version” refers to the version all poms will have after the release.

The main duties of the release:branch and release:prepare is to update the version information.
In all cases will the originating branch’s version be updated to the new working copy version.
Branch will create a branch without updating any version information and prepare will update
all versions to the release version (without SNAPSHOT) and tag that in git before updating
it again to the “new working copy version”.

I thought these versions were self-explanatory, maybe I should elaborate a little more on


Am 03.01.18, 23:06 schrieb "Dale LaBossiere" <dml.apache@gmail.com>:

    per the releasing.adoc, I ran the release:branch step in a new clone of the GitHub mirror
repo (I neglected to clone the ASF repo) and it actually auto-pushed 3 items to the ASF repo
:-(    (when release:branch completed, there were still two commits pending/not-yet-pushed
as expected) 
    I also neglected to “git checkout develop” so these auto-pushed commits were to the
master branch (though they netted to a no-op change) :-(
    Lastly even after cleaning up (below) release/9.9 is still showing up in the Branch pulldown
of on the GitHub repo :-(  Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-15777 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-15777>
    When I tried again with a fresh ASF repo clone and on the develop branch, release:branch
is prompting and I’m not sure what to reply with - don’t understand what the “new working
copy version” terminology is really identifying.  Did you run with more -D options?   I’m
guessing it’s asking about what to advance the develop branch version to (for the next release),
and when you were doing the 1.2.0 release I’m guessing that you must have replied/specified
    @Dales-MacBook-Pro:604> git status
    On branch develop
    Your branch is up-to-date with 'origin/develop'.
    nothing to commit, working tree clean
    @Dales-MacBook-Pro:605> mvn release:branch -P platform-android,platform-java7,distribution
-DbranchName=release/9.9 -DautoVersionSubmodules=true
    What is the new working copy version for "Apache Edgent"? (org.apache.edgent:edgent-parent)
1.3.1-SNAPSHOT: :   
    FYI, from my first botched release:branch run:
    These 3 auto-pushed changes were now on master:
    	- commit of pom.xml on master (yikes) to change the scm-tag from edgent-1.2.0 => release/9.9
    	- created the release/9.9 branch
    	- commit of pom.xml on master to undo the prior commit (scm-tag back to edgent-1.2.0)
    To cleanup I:
    	- deleted the release/9.9 branch locally and in the asf repo
    		Sadly, asf repo’s GitHub mirror still shows “release/9.9” in its branch pulldown.
    	- “git reset —hard HEAD^^” followed by a “git push —force” to essentially
remove the above two commits on master
    > On Jan 3, 2018, at 2:20 PM, Christofer Dutz <christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
    > Hi Dale,
    > I think I did write down all the steps involving Maven in the document:
    > src/site/asciidoc/releasing.adoc
    > The merge with the other RM doc is that the release-perform will create the source
tar/zip we vote on in “target/checkout/target/***.tar.gz” and the corresponding zip. The
files should follow the exact naming convention used to deploy it on the staging svn.
    > In the last release, I manually created the directory structure and checked in the
files. After that I used the existing scripts to deploy the voted-on release to prod.
    > But it’s always good for others to try it too … and yes … it will do all the
steps without pushing (it will however create a Maven staging repo). The staging repo is simply
removed by a simple click and with the git repo, a simple forced git reset should do the trick.
    > If you run into any problems, I’ll try to help as soon as possible.
    > Chris
    > Am 03.01.18, 18:26 schrieb "Dale LaBossiere" <dlaboss@apache.org>:
    >    Hi Chris, 
    >    At a high level, we need to ensure someone can reproduce what you just went through
for 1.2.0.
    >    It feels like I should try going through the process for a, fictitious at the
moment, 1.3.0 release.  i.e., going all the way up to staging the release in dist.apache.org
and in Nexus (“Closing the staging repository”), then cleaning that all up like it never
happened (“Actions if the vote failed”, plus removing the release/1.3 branch).  Does that
make sense?  
    >    As long as I don’t “git push” the created branch and pom-version-change
commits, is cleanup as easy as just destroying my repo-clone?
    >    Looking at src/site/asciidoc/releasing.adoc, it looks pretty complete, but...
    >    In the vote-passed case, where’s the step / cmds to merge the release to master?
    >    In the vote-failed case, presumably the “fixes” are make on the release branch,
and the eventual “Prepare” redo with the same args does what’s needed.  But where’s
the step / (cherrypick?) cmds to get the fixes to the develop branch? (imagine there are numerous
commits for the fixes)
    >    I’m also unclear on the flow for a bug fix release like 1.2.1.  Just make the
changes on the release/1.2 branch and BEGIN the process with “mvn release:prepare … -tag
edgent-1.2.1 -DdevelopmentVersion=1.2.2-SNAPSHOT -DreleaseVersion=1.2.1”?  And again steps
/ (cherrypick?) cmds to get the 1.2.1 fixes to the develop branch.
    >    Once I can get through this I’ll update the RM-guide.  At least initially I’ll
leave releasing.adoc as is (covering what it covers) and just update the RM-guide accordingly
and link to it.  I don’t want to duplicate info and I don’t want to merge it into a single
doc — unless you agree that migrating releasing.adoc content to the wiki (and removing releasing.adoc)
is OK :-) 
    >    — Dale

View raw message