groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cédric Champeau <>
Subject Re: In shape for a 2.4.4 release?
Date Tue, 19 May 2015 20:04:12 GMT
2015-05-19 21:59 GMT+02:00 Andrew Bayer <>:

> Source artifacts will need to be posted to - that's the
> canonical location for all Apache releases.
Yup, if it wasn't clear, that was what I meant with "release manager has to
copy to [1]".

> We'll also need to make sure that verifies
> that we don't have license issues, etc - looks like Samza has done some of
> the work for integrating Gradle and Rat already (
> so we may
> be able to build on that.
I have used a license plugin for Gradle to do it actually. But if someone
wants to run Rat before we start the release, I'd be happy to have the

> A.
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Cédric Champeau <>
> wrote:
>>  Hi guys,
>> I wanted to check with you what is preventing us from releasing 2.4.4.
>> Apart from the usual bugfixes, I think the necessary work on the source
>> code itself to match the Apache guidance has been done (in particular
>> licenses checks).
>> From my perspective it should be possible to release using the "old
>> process" with subtle differences:
>> - a release manager chosen from the IPMC will initiate the release
>> - release will be done from the CI server
>> - binaries/sources/distributions will be signed automatically, as usual,
>> through Bintray
>> - Maven artifacts will be published automatically on Artifactory (OJO)
>> So far, nothing differs from the usual process but:
>> - Maven Central synchronization *will* be disabled, instead of done
>> automatically until now, so that we can cancel the release if it is
>> downvoted
>> - Sources/distributions need to be copied manually from Bintray to [1] by
>> the release manager (attn mentors: how?)
>> - since we do not generate MD5 files through Gradle yet (it's not a
>> technical problem), the release manager should generate the checksums for
>> sources/distributions/binaries and upload them to [1] too. An open question
>> is whether those signatures should be generated in Bintray, in which case
>> we need support from them, or from our side, in which case we have to
>> update the build to generate them and make them artifacts.
>> - release manager announces on dev@ and voting starts
>> - if vote is positive, release manager asks IPMC to vote
>> - if vote is positive, release manager triggers Maven Central
>> synchronization from Bintray and announces the release on the MLs
>> - if vote is positive, website needs to be updated too [2]
>> We have chosen to use a version number *without* -incubating for the
>> artifacts. Only the sources zip will have -incubating in the file name, as
>> the incubator policy mandates. The website download logic will have to be
>> adapted for this special case.
>> What do you think?
>> [1]
>> [2]

View raw message