zipkin-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adrian Cole <adrian.f.c...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Zipkin Brave Karaf (incubating) version 0.1.2
Date Sun, 10 Feb 2019 23:30:26 GMT
Do you know an example of any apache project that has a second variant of a
README for this purpose?

I still think we shouldn't be adding more steps than others are doing.
There is absolutely nothing unique about using maven compile or package
goal. it is default.

On Sun, Feb 10, 2019, 10:46 PM Tommy Ludwig <tommy.ludwig.csjf@gmail.com
wrote:

> I think it would be best if we have a README file in the source that
> includes instructions on how to build. Someone downloading the source
> release should ideally be able to learn how to build that release from the
> included sources, IMO. At least this is my interpretation of the Apache
> way. It would ensure that if the instructions for how to build the project
> change, we don't need to keep a history separately (e.g. in a Wiki) since
> the instructions included in the release should always be correct for that
> release and would be tested by the PMC during release voting.
>
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 11:09 PM Adrian Cole <adrian.f.cole@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > OK all: the new git SHA is 31545805a55dbe5e495403d84172fc865a4935e0
> >
> > Lesson learned is that we should be specific about how precisely to
> > test things, and that RMs (me in this case) should attempt those
> > things in a completely clean env (ex nuking all the caches).
> >
> > Towards that end, beyond the usual apache stuff. If you want to test
> > the contents themselves, execute basically the same stuff as dubbo
> > mentions in their "Verify Release Candidates" section. We have the
> > same requirements as they do, but they already have a TODO list. We
> > can make one like this later I guess.
> >
> >
> >
> https://dubbo.incubator.apache.org/en-us/blog/prepare-an-apache-release.html
> >
> > I don't know if we restart the 3 days now or not.. it doesn't really
> > matter as no-one is blocking on this 0.1 release. Anyway, appreciate
> > in advance those who are up to practicing verifying a release!
> > -A
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 2:13 PM Adrian Cole <adrian.f.cole@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for understanding, Zoltan. FWIW, the test in question had the
> > > incorrect naming convention for an integration test. Tommy noticed
> > > that it should have never run in the package phase anyway. This
> > > corrects that:
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zipkin-brave-karaf/pull/28
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 1:35 PM Zoltán Nagy <abesto@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Vote: +1
> > > >
> > > > Yeah in general I'd say trust that CI has already verified we're OK,
> > and
> > > > don't run integration tests on package / install in the released
> > artifacts.
> > > > Good point about Docker as well. I've just tried `./mvnw package` on
> a
> > > > clone from git - first run passed, then the second one failed with
> the
> > same
> > > > error as the source release. I'm ready to let this go as "finicky
> > > > integration tests".
> > > >
> > > > The release is Good Enough (TM) as is IMHO, assuming we provide some
> > > > command-line to package it up without running the integration tests.
> Of
> > > > course it'd be even nicer if users didn't even have to do _that_, but
> > let's
> > > > not block the release on this.
> > > >
> > > > Note on stripping itests from the source release: ideally that'd be
> > done
> > > > without modifying the code-base, since one of the steps pre-vote is
> > > > verifying that the code in the release is actually the code in the
> > cited
> > > > commit hash - release-time code modification makes that harder
> (though
> > not
> > > > impossible, the difference should be trivial in any case). I _guess_
> > that'd
> > > > mean making package / install / whatever not run itests, and adding
> > itests
> > > > to CI explicitly, but as it's been proven several times, I only have
> > > > superficial knowledge of Maven, so I'll stop trying to guess here.
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 12:13 PM Adrian Cole <
> adrian.f.cole@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > FWIW the build worked on my laptop. it might be an environment
> > nuance.
> > > > > Karaf itests are sensitive, and so for example end users shouldn't
> > > > > require anything delicate. For example, would you fail a build
> > because
> > > > > a user can't install docker that's a prereq? We are only vetting
> code
> > > > > I think we should step back from signing ourselves up to make every
> > > > > potential user able to run all the myriad of integration tests
> > > > > possible in our environments.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 1:09 PM Zoltán Nagy <abesto@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > however if there is something in the zip it should work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Agree. I pretended to be a user with relatively little knowledge
> > about
> > > > > the
> > > > > > internals here - with that hat on, I don't mind whether it's
the
> > itests
> > > > > or
> > > > > > whatever else that's failing, all I know is that `./mvnw package`
> > should
> > > > > > give me something I can deploy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I will lightly look into how much logic we need in
> > > > > > > general to strip itests out completely.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Weak opinion: I like that tests are shipped with the release,
so
> > that
> > > > > (if I
> > > > > > use the source release) there's a last line of defense against
> > badness.
> > > > > Not
> > > > > > to mention, this way tests are also run in an environment that's
> > closer
> > > > > to
> > > > > > my production. Still, this is mostly academical - I expect 99%
of
> > our
> > > > > users
> > > > > > to use the binary convenience artifacts, so the point is somewhat
> > moot.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > on a related note, it could be helpful to have Jenkins
check
> our
> > > > > release
> > > > > > > tags
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That should be simple enough to add, since in pipelines we can
> say
> > stuff
> > > > > > like "when { tag "release-*" }" where the wildcard is an
> Ant-style
> > > > > > wildcard. At the same time: since tags for us are always on
> > master, I
> > > > > > mostly expect this to add no additional value, since we already
> > run tests
> > > > > > on master pushes. Since tests on CI passed on the commit you
> > tagged for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > release, I expect the error to be somehow introduced by the
> > packaging
> > > > > > process. In that case we'd want to run tests against the RC
> source
> > > > > > artifacts - this also shouldn't be too hard to add, but would
> > probably be
> > > > > > best to set up as a job that's manually triggered against a
> > specific zip
> > > > > > once it's uploaded (consider: we can automatically trigger on
> > tags, but
> > > > > > more likely than not, the release at that point hasn't been
> > uploaded to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > ASF dev repo yet). At that point this is "just" a convenience
/
> > extra
> > > > > > safety net, since voting PMC members will do this check locally
> > anyway.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 10:38 AM Adrian Cole <
> > adrian.f.cole@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > thanks zoltan. we dont deploy the itests so probably dont
> > generally
> > > > > need to
> > > > > > > validate them for ASF reasons. however if there is something
in
> > the
> > > > > zip it
> > > > > > > should work. I will look into this to see if it is failing
> > because it
> > > > > > > should fail or not. also I will lightly look into how much
> logic
> > we
> > > > > need in
> > > > > > > general to strip itests out completely.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > on a related note, it could be helpful to have Jenkins
check
> our
> > > > > release
> > > > > > > tags (mvnw install not deploy) so that we know the actual
code
> > still
> > > > > works
> > > > > > > (vs a distribution of it)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2019, 5:20 PM Zoltán Nagy <abesto@apache.org
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Confirming we're now in a better state:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > * GPG signature and SHA512 of the artifact check out.
I
> > expected to
> > > > > also
> > > > > > > > see a signature for the checksum, but
> > > > > > > > https://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution doesn't
> > mention
> > > > > that,
> > > > > > > so I
> > > > > > > > think we're fine.
> > > > > > > > * Confirming base dir is now non-confusing :)
> > > > > > > > * Code in release matches code at commit 4c28076fd
> > > > > > > > * `./mvnw compile` succeeds (note: the license checker
Maven
> > plugin
> > > > > > > > complains for about a screenful about failing to find
the
> > latest git
> > > > > > > > commit, but this doesn't fail the build)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > However, I'm still -1:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > * `./mvnw package` fails both on my macOS and Windows
Linux
> > Subsystem
> > > > > > > > environments: io.zipkin.brave.itests.BraveTest fails
with
> > > > > > > > java.lang.ClassNotFoundException for zipkin2.reporter.Sender.
> > Gist of
> > > > > > > > relevant Maven output:
> > > > > > > >
> > https://gist.github.com/abesto/632f7e7e515de2adb9b3ba04d7606659
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 4:10 AM Adrian Cole <
> > adrian.f.cole@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > sorry I forgot to mention that GPG asc files
weren't there
> > because
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > used the old "release" profile not the "apache-release"
> one.
> > I've
> > > > > > > > > removed the old profile to remove confusion as
it is no
> > longer used
> > > > > > > > > anyway
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 5:08 AM Adrian Cole <
> > > > > adrian.f.cole@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > OK all should be resolved now. The new git
hash is
> > > > > > > > > > 4c28076fd617f4896cae77e773de7090bcebe6b4
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > All other locations etc should be the same.
Here is a
> > summary of
> > > > > > > > > glitches fixed:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > * zip wasn't named correctly I formerly
manually fixed
> it.
> > Now
> > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > > > > > > > > * zip basedir wasn't intuitive. it is now
> > brave-karaf-$version
> > > > > > > > > > * we accidentally published itests, now
we don't
> > > > > > > > > > * dummy release notes didn't explain this
was only a
> canary
> > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > There was no code change only build script
stuff.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -A
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 10:38 PM Jorge Quilcate
<
> > > > > > > > quilcate.jorge@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 2/9/19 2:30 PM, Adrian Cole wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > agreed the release notes link
is empty. I didn't go
> > through
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > formality
> > > > > > > > > > > > of making release notes for 0.1.2
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 9, 2019, 9:19 PM Brian
Devins-Suresh <
> > > > > > > > badevins@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> +1
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Are release votes not supposed
to include some
> > synopsis of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > changes? I
> > > > > > > > > > > >> know this is a first release
within the incubator
> but
> > it
> > > > > might
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > good to
> > > > > > > > > > > >> just call that out?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 6:41
AM José Carlos Chávez <
> > > > > > > > > jcchavezs@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> +1
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Den lør. 9. feb. 2019,
11:36 skrev Adrian Cole <
> > > > > > > > > adrian.f.cole@gmail.com:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I can't find the
GPG signature for the artifact
> > and the
> > > > > > > > > checksum. I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> looking at
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/zipkin/brave-karaf/0.1.2/
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> ,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and am expecting
to see two .asc files, and am
> not
> > seeing
> > > > > > > any.
> > > > > > > > > Am I
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> looking
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> in the wrong place?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> no that is the right
place. I must have missed
> > something.
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > >> asked
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> me for my GPG password
so something must have
> > gotten lost.
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > report
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> back.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> The folder contained
in the source zip is called
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> "brave-karaf-parent-0.1.2".
I'd expect it to be
> > just
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> "brave-karaf-0.1.2".
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> (Quite possible
I'm just missing some Java
> > ecosystem
> > > > > > > knowledge
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> fine).
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I think this is also
valid. Let me look into
> > customizing
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > artifact
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> basedir. It is inheriting
this from the aggregator
> > (base
> > > > > > > > pom.xml)
> > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> intentionally name
different as often the actual
> > lib is
> > > > > called
> > > > > > > > > > > >> something
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> like brave-karaf
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > dev-unsubscribe@zipkin.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > dev-help@zipkin.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@zipkin.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-help@zipkin.apache.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@zipkin.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@zipkin.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@zipkin.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@zipkin.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message