taverna-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Release Candidate 5 of taverna-language-0.15.1 and taverna-osgi-0.2.1
Date Wed, 02 Mar 2016 18:33:51 GMT
+1! Would you be OK to start? I guess Andy's list is a good starting
point. I can add my "shell tricks" where they fit. (and then we can
remove the more evil ones :))

On 2 March 2016 at 17:42, Gale Naylor <GaleN@noventussolutions.com> wrote:
> I like the "what do i do now" section. What if we develop it in the wiki
> and then, when we're happy with it, migrate it to the community section of
> the website?
>
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 7:18 AM Stian Soiland-Reyes <stain@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, we can develop it in the wiki, or append it to
>> http://taverna.incubator.apache.org/community/releasing perhaps?
>>
>> There should be a "I received a VOTE email, what do I do now?" section.
>>
>> On 2 March 2016 at 11:59, Ian Dunlop <ianwdunlop@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I think we need to capture all these tricks somewhere. Stian suggested we
>> > propose updating the 'official' apache release page - sounds like a good
>> > idea - but I think we could add it to the taverna pages first and then
>> > maybe send a link to it to the (I don't know) incubator list to gauge
>> > interest.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Ian
>> >
>> > On 1 March 2016 at 22:42, Gale Naylor <GaleN@noventussolutions.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thank you, Stian! Some of my questions I figured out today, but some I
>> did
>> >> not, so I very much appreciate the hints and instructions.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:28 PM Stian Soiland-Reyes <stain@apache.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Thanks for reviewing!
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >  > (1) How do I verify that the commit id in the downloaded files
>> matches
>> >> > that
>> >> > > in the VOTE email? (I've looked on the internet, but have yet
to
>> find
>> >> > > anything helpful.)
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't think most people check this deeply.. but I guess at least
one
>> >> > voter should.
>> >> >
>> >> > Here's what I do:
>> >> >
>> >> > mkdir 1 ; cd 1  # new folder
>> >> > git clone that-repository
>> >> > git checkout that-commit-id-from-the-email-asdfjaskdjfsakjdfksajdf
>> >> > rm -rf *
>> >> > unzip ../the-release-candidate.zip
>> >> > mv apache-taverna-*/* .  (one level up)
>> >> > git status
>> >> >
>> >> > Git will then check the checksums of every file and let you know what
>> >> > has 'changed' (as it would believe you have edited it).
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Here's another way that doesn't require using the 'git' command:
>> >> >
>> >> > Download the git commit corresponding to the email by browsing for
it
>> on
>> >> > GitHub:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-taverna-language/tree/66866a5454ed23262c055f65155d7a195c68a17d
>> >> > Click "Download ZIP"
>> >> >
>> >> > mkdir 1 ; cd 1
>> >> > unzip ../66866a5454ed23262c055f65155d7a195c68a17d.zip
>> >> >
>> >> > cd ../ ; mkdir 2 ; cd 2
>> >> > unzip release-candidate.zip
>> >> >
>> >> > cd ..
>> >> > diff -uR 1 2
>> >> >
>> >> > The files that differ (and their differences!) will be shown.
>> >> >
>> >> > Make sure you don't have any target/ folders before diff-ing (run mvn
>> >> > clean to be sure)
>> >> >
>> >> > If you do the above with a git clone instead - remember that the zip
>> >> > doesn't include the .git/ folder - so you would have to delete the
>> >> > checked out .git folder before diffing.  (Don't do this on your
>> >> > regular checkout as you would lose all local branches!)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > > (2) Are the "binary artifacts" in the target folders? Which files
>> are
>> >> > > considered "binary artifacts?"
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, the target/ files are binary artifacts, but they (should) have
>> >> > been made by your build on your machine - not be part of the source
>> >> > ZIP.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > One thing to look out for is in the downloaded source ZIP that there
>> >> > are no unexpected binary artifacts in it *before you build* - e.g.
>> >> > there should not be any *.jars in there.  (The source distribution
>> >> > should be 'clean'). We do have some *expected* binaries, pictures and
>> >> > test workflows for instance.  As those can't have license headers they
>> >> > should be declared in NOTICE/LICENSE if they came from third-parties.
>> >> > (E.g. if we used a Creative Commons-licensed JPEG picture)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > In terms of release candidate, the binaries would be installers and
>> >> > JARs etc., under
>> >> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/taverna/binaries/
>> >> > (But there are none for this release candidate)
>> >> >
>> >> > ..in addition to the JARs that have been staged to the Maven
>> repository
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachetaverna-1011/org/apache/taverna/
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > > (3) How do I verify that the build produces the binaries? By visual
>> >> > > inspection? What am I looking for?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > As for checking the Maven repository, if you want to do it really
>> >> > proper you should check that all the JARs that are staged can be built
>> >> > from the downloaded release candidate ZIP - e.g. that your target/
>> >> > folder contains all of the same ones.   If I do this, I do a recursive
>> >> > wget of the repository, and then compare the result of "find . -name
>> >> > '*jar'"  in the wget-tree with */*/target/*.jar.  I don't think most
>> >> > people do this.
>> >> >
>> >> > Paranoid-mode would be to download each JAR and check that they only
>> >> > have the same *.class files - but these would differ for every build
>> >> > and so can't be compared any further without lots of clever tooling
-
>> >> > so nobody does this. (I think there should be an Apache-hosted tool
or
>> >> > Maven plugin that could do this).
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Practically the best is just to click briefly into the repository in
a
>> >> > browser and see there are not any 'additional' folders that shouldn't
>> >> > be there, e.g. we are now voting on taverna-maven-parent, taverna-osgi
>> >> > and taverna-language, and so we should not see
>> >> > org/apache/taverna/engine in there - as that is a group Id from
>> >> > taverna-engine.
>> >> >
>> >> > (We have already changed the groupIDs to correspond to the repository
>> >> > which corresponds to the release name, so at least that correspondance
>> >> > is easy to check on Taverna, but not so on many other projects).
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > As binary releases from Apache Software Foundation are considered
>> >> > "convenience only" they are not crucial for the vote - the source
>> >> > release is the golden thing which everything else should be made from.
>> >> > Practically speaking "everyone" uses the JARs from Maven repository
>> >> > though, so I wouldn't dismiss them totally - at least one person in
>> >> > the vote should do such a check.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > > (4) How do I check the dependencies?
>> >> >
>> >> > mvn dependency:tree gives a nice list - but what should you check for?
>> >> > Well, it's mainly about licensing -
>> >> > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html lists what is compatible
as
>> >> > dependencies of an ASF release.  Now you don't need to go through the
>> >> > list - but sometimes there are Well Known forbidden dependencies that
>> >> > People (tm) recognize -e.g. mysql-connector and Hibernate are banned
>> >> > as they are (L)GPL.
>> >> >
>> >> > Luckily there's another Maven plugin that can do the job:
>> >> >
>> >> > mvn license:aggregate-add-third-party
>> >> >
>> >> > cat target/generated-sources/license/THIRD-PARTY.txt | sort
>> >> >
>> >> >      (Aduna BSD license) OpenRDF Sesame: HTTP client
>> >> > (org.openrdf.sesame:sesame-http-client:2.7.0 -
>> >> > http://www.openrdf.org/sesame-core/sesame-http/sesame-http-client/)
>> >> >      (Aduna BSD license) OpenRDF Sesame: HTTP protocol
>> >> > (org.openrdf.sesame:sesame-http-protocol:2.7.0 -
>> >> > http://www.openrdf.org/sesame-core/sesame-http/sesame-http-protocol/)
>> >> > (..)
>> >> >      (The Apache Software License, Version 2.0) Xerces2-j
>> >> > (xerces:xercesImpl:2.11.0 - https://xerces.apache.org/xerces2-j/)
>> >> >      (Unknown license) commons-beanutils
>> >> > (commons-beanutils:commons-beanutils:1.7.0 - no url defined)
>> >> >      (Unknown license) com.springsource.org.jaxen
>> >> > (org.jaxen:com.springsource.org.jaxen:1.1.1 - no url defined)
>> >> >      (Unknown license) com.springsource.org.jdom
>> >> > (org.jdom:com.springsource.org.jdom:1.1.0 - no url defined)
>> >> >      (Unknown license) Logging (commons-logging:commons-logging:1.0.3
>> >> > - http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/logging/)
>> >> >
>> >> > (BTW, those last 4 are already checked to be OK, see
>> >> > http://dev.mygrid.org.uk/wiki/display/developer/Third-party+licenses
>> )
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > > Regarding the build output: Since this is the first time I've
done
>> >> this,
>> >> > I
>> >> > > don't know what's okay to ignore. Here is a summary of the warning
>> >> > messages
>> >> > > I received when I ran mvn clean install. I sent the output to
two
>> >> > different
>> >> > > files using the following command (Windows 10/ GitBash): mvn clean
>> >> > install
>> >> > >> output1.txt 2> output2.txt. I appreciate any insight.
>> >> >
>> >> > Great!   I think those should be tracked in JIRA as we want to reduce
>> >> > warnings.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Generally with Maven, if it finishes with a big SUCCESS, then that's
>> >> > true. The warnings are more like warnings for the developers doing
>> >> > bad-practice-stuff than warnings about something going wrong with the
>> >> > build.   Often the fixes are simple, like adding a @Deprecated tag
>> >> > where you delibately use old APIs, or actually follow the fix
>> >> > suggested by the warning.
>> >> >
>> >> > I think we want to follow Andy's advice and "release early, release
>> >> > often" - which entails a "good enough" - not "super-perfect".
>> >> > Obviously each committer votes independenly by their own quality
>> >> > measures.
>> >> >
>> >> > While Apache Software Foundation always says that community is king
-
>> >> > the Apache name is still recognized by the public as a kind of
>> >> > "quality mark" - if that is deserved or not I won't comment on, but
of
>> >> > course there is also a sense of pride in that we don't want to set
the
>> >> > standard too low.  :)
>> >> >
>> >> > (E.g. Taverna just cancelled 3 release candidates as they didn't pass
>> >> > all their tests on Windows - but the community of another Apache
>> >> > project might not consider Windows important enough to halt a release)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Stian Soiland-Reyes
>> >> > Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
>> >> > http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stian Soiland-Reyes
>> Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
>> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>>



-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes
Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718

Mime
View raw message