You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to jdo-dev@db.apache.org by Andy Jefferson <an...@datanucleus.org> on 2009/05/06 13:05:37 UTC
JDO 2.3-ea : Release process
Having tried this "release process" I find the following.
In step 7 it says
"7. Sign the artifacts. You must have a gpg key in order to perform this step.
The sign-directory script is checked into jdo/bin. Edit this script to refer
to your own environment (do not check it in).
bin/sign-directory releases/2.n/dist/jdo2.<n>-rc<m>"
yet there is no directory with a name like that.
"releases/2.3-ea/dist" is the closest I have. Under that we have
db
m1-ibiblio-rsync-repository
Is this correct ?
These are presumably created by the steps before that. So all files under
there need signing. Ok.
If I look in the poms under
"releases/2.3-ea/dist/m1-ibiblio-rsync-repository/"
they all have
<currentVersion>${jdo.currentVersion}</currentVersion>
This also seems to be what is being pushed about in IBiblio. It just basically
seems wrong to me. They should have real versions in when over there. I
suggest an extra step, before the signing
*** Update all poms under m1-ibiblio-rsync-repository to be the real version
***
Another question : there is no mention of checking in the stuff
under "releases". Some seem to have been checked in and some not. What is the
policy ?
Also, how does the Maven2 repository "maven-metadata.xml" file get changed ?
Is it manually hacked somewhere ? and if so, how does it then get pushed onto
IBiblio ?
Thx
--
Andy (DataNucleus - http://www.datanucleus.org)
Re: JDO 2.3-ea : Release process
Posted by Andy Jefferson <an...@datanucleus.org>.
> Thinking a bit more about it, this isn't a parent pom issue. It's a
> maven settings issue. Somewhere you need to have the
> jdo.currentVersion set.
>
> Michelle engineered this solution. I don't remember the details on
> where the version is supposed to be set...
If using the Maven "install"/"deploy" goals then the version is substituted in
the "pom" that is put in the repo. However the process to generate the
release actually just does a <copy> of the project.xml from api2 etc which
won't substitute anything.
Obviously it would be nice if Apache allowed a way of deploying direct into
IBiblio (using the deploy goal) and then this 2 stage copying process would
be unnecessary.
--
Andy (DataNucleus - http://www.datanucleus.org)
Re: JDO 2.3-ea : Release process
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
On May 6, 2009, at 7:49 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>> If I look in the poms under
>> "releases/2.3-ea/dist/m1-ibiblio-rsync-repository/"
>> they all have
>> <currentVersion>${jdo.currentVersion}</currentVersion>
>> This also seems to be what is being pushed about in IBiblio. It
>> just basically
>> seems wrong to me. They should have real versions in when over
>> there. I
>> suggest an extra step, before the signing
>> *** Update all poms under m1-ibiblio-rsync-repository to be the
>> real version
>> ***
>
> This was supposed to be fixed by the parent pom. Something musta
> gone bad...
>>
>
Thinking a bit more about it, this isn't a parent pom issue. It's a
maven settings issue. Somewhere you need to have the
jdo.currentVersion set.
Michelle engineered this solution. I don't remember the details on
where the version is supposed to be set...
Craig
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: JDO 2.3-ea : Release process
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Andy,
On May 6, 2009, at 4:05 AM, Andy Jefferson wrote:
> Having tried this "release process" I find the following.
>
> In step 7 it says
> "7. Sign the artifacts. You must have a gpg key in order to perform
> this step.
> The sign-directory script is checked into jdo/bin.
The script is in the bin directory parallel to trunk and releases. You
may have to do an svn checkout if you don't have the entire jdo project.
> Edit this script to refer
> to your own environment (do not check it in).
> bin/sign-directory releases/2.n/dist/jdo2.<n>-rc<m>"
>
> yet there is no directory with a name like that.
> "releases/2.3-ea/dist" is the closest I have. Under that we have
> db
> m1-ibiblio-rsync-repository
>
> Is this correct ?
> These are presumably created by the steps before that. So all files
> under
> there need signing. Ok.
Right. All the .jar, .tgz, etc. artifacts need a detached signature
and checksum.
>
>
>
>
> If I look in the poms under
> "releases/2.3-ea/dist/m1-ibiblio-rsync-repository/"
> they all have
> <currentVersion>${jdo.currentVersion}</currentVersion>
> This also seems to be what is being pushed about in IBiblio. It just
> basically
> seems wrong to me. They should have real versions in when over
> there. I
> suggest an extra step, before the signing
> *** Update all poms under m1-ibiblio-rsync-repository to be the real
> version
> ***
This was supposed to be fixed by the parent pom. Something musta gone
bad...
>
>
>
>
> Another question : there is no mention of checking in the stuff
> under "releases". Some seem to have been checked in and some not.
> What is the
> policy ?
We need to have a permanent svn archive of what we released.
>
>
>
> Also, how does the Maven2 repository "maven-metadata.xml" file get
> changed ?
> Is it manually hacked somewhere ? and if so, how does it then get
> pushed onto
> IBiblio ?
It needs to be manually hacked for now, and made part of the release
process.
Craig
>
>
>
> Thx
> --
> Andy (DataNucleus - http://www.datanucleus.org)
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!