groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Bayer <andrew.ba...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: In shape for a 2.4.4 release?
Date Tue, 19 May 2015 19:59:13 GMT
Source artifacts will need to be posted to dist.apache.org - that's the
canonical location for all Apache releases. We'll also need to make sure
that http://creadur.apache.org/rat/ verifies that we don't have license
issues, etc - looks like Samza has done some of the work for integrating
Gradle and Rat already (
https://github.com/apache/samza/blob/master/gradle/rat.gradle) so we may be
able to build on that.

A.

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:36 PM, C├ędric Champeau <cchampeau@apache.org>
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] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/groovy
> [2] https://github.com/groovy/groovy-website
>
>

Mime
View raw message