Release?

[Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com>]

Hi everyone,

Its been a while since we released the release candidate binaries - what's the next step? 

There were a couple of minor issues with the binaries (x permissions needing to be set, war deployment using jetty) but I think they could be covered in a release note.

S

Re: Release?

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

Thanks Luciano. 

Sent from my mobile device.

On 1 Apr 2011, at 00:39, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I'm tempted to say no, lets just get this out of the door. Bypass the Ant
>> 1.8 issue by not officially releasing the source versions and following up
>> fairly quickly with 0.9.1?
>> 
> 
> -1, per Apache policy, every release MUST contain a source package,
> and binaries are optional.
> 
> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what-must-every-release-contain
> 
> 
> -- 
> Luciano Resende
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/

Re: Release?

[Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'm tempted to say no, lets just get this out of the door. Bypass the Ant
> 1.8 issue by not officially releasing the source versions and following up
> fairly quickly with 0.9.1?
>

 -1, per Apache policy, every release MUST contain a source package,
and binaries are optional.

[1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what-must-every-release-contain


-- 
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://twitter.com/lresende1975
http://lresende.blogspot.com/

Re: Release?

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

On 01/04/2011 16:03, Paul Sharples wrote:
> On 01/04/2011 11:29, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> On 01/04/2011 10:29, Paul Sharples wrote:
>>
>>> Just to expand on that I mean I would rebuild the 0.9.0 branch to
>>> recreate the builds with the added KEYS file (containing the commiters
>>> public keys) and new updated NOTES file (containing the few issues we
>>> found in WOOKIE-181), then sign the binaries. Additionally the ant
>>> build-release tasks also make tar archives which are not currently on my
>>> people.apache.org space. (if you want to double check these then use the
>>> ant build-release task in the 0.9.0 branch to build them yourself).
>>> Nothing has changed in the branch since i built them last time, so they
>>> should in theory be exactly the same.
>>>
>>> Is there anything I've missed?
>>
>>
>> When I moved the release process docs across to the CMS last night I
>> added some more detail to the process. You can see it at
>> http://wookie.staging.apache.org/wookie/docs/developer/release.html
>> (committers only as we have not published this new site yet).
>>
>> Ross
>
> Thanks for this Ross it helps a lot,

I should make it clear that this is not set in stone. This is the way 
*I'm* used to doing it in ASF projects. There are very few steps in this 
process that are required, I just find it easier this way. If you, as 
release manager on this release want to change it feel free. Your 
mentors will pull you up if there is an issue.

> One question...
>
> I'm obviously going to have to rebuild the releases as the ones up on my
> people.apache.org site are not signed, don't contain the file KEYS etc.

Sure, that is done after testing when you build the release (as opposed 
to release candidate).

> But the "Web of Trust" is marked as "post release" in the doc you put
> up. Does this mean I can now add your public key (as well as Scotts,
> Kris's and Raidos as they are - even if one or more of us haven't signed
> / trusted each others?) Or does that have to be in place before I sign
> the build?

That's a cut and past error (now fixed) in the heading. I've moved it to 
the "development" phase. We should all be seeking to get our keys signed 
by as many people as possible, all the time. Strictly speaking it's not 
part of the release process itself.

We need to make sure the public keys are recorded so you can sign the 
release itself. However the signing of one anothers keys in the "web of 
trust" can happen at any time. The more people who sign our keys the 
more likely a paranoid sysadmin will be able to find someone within 
their "web of trust" who's signed the release.

Next time I'm up in Bolton remind me to do the key signing thing. I'm 
afraid I'm a bit severe on signing keys. I insist on seeing ID, the key 
and the person all together at the same time before I'll sign. Of course 
that does mean you can truly trust any key I've signed (if you trust me 
of course). Unfortunately this means I have not signed enough keys.

Ross



-- 
rgardler@apache.org
@rgardler

Re: Release?

[Paul Sharples <p....@bolton.ac.uk>]

On 01/04/2011 11:29, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 01/04/2011 10:29, Paul Sharples wrote:
>
>> Just to expand on that I mean I would rebuild the 0.9.0 branch to
>> recreate the builds with the added KEYS file (containing the commiters
>> public keys) and new updated NOTES file (containing the few issues we
>> found in WOOKIE-181), then sign the binaries. Additionally the ant
>> build-release tasks also make tar archives which are not currently on my
>> people.apache.org space. (if you want to double check these then use the
>> ant build-release task in the 0.9.0 branch to build them yourself).
>> Nothing has changed in the branch since i built them last time, so they
>> should in theory be exactly the same.
>>
>> Is there anything I've missed?
>
>
> When I moved the release process docs across to the CMS last night I 
> added some more detail to the process. You can see it at 
> http://wookie.staging.apache.org/wookie/docs/developer/release.html
> (committers only as we have not published this new site yet).
>
> Ross

Thanks for this Ross it helps a lot,

One question...

I'm obviously going to have to rebuild the releases as the ones up on my 
people.apache.org site are not signed, don't contain the file KEYS etc.

But the "Web of Trust" is marked as "post release" in the doc you put 
up.  Does this mean I can now add your public key (as well as Scotts, 
Kris's and Raidos as they are  - even if one or more of us haven't 
signed / trusted each others?) Or does that have to be in place before I 
sign the build?

thanks

Re: Release?

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

On 01/04/2011 10:29, Paul Sharples wrote:

> Just to expand on that I mean I would rebuild the 0.9.0 branch to
> recreate the builds with the added KEYS file (containing the commiters
> public keys) and new updated NOTES file (containing the few issues we
> found in WOOKIE-181), then sign the binaries. Additionally the ant
> build-release tasks also make tar archives which are not currently on my
> people.apache.org space. (if you want to double check these then use the
> ant build-release task in the 0.9.0 branch to build them yourself).
> Nothing has changed in the branch since i built them last time, so they
> should in theory be exactly the same.
>
> Is there anything I've missed?


When I moved the release process docs across to the CMS last night I 
added some more detail to the process. You can see it at 
http://wookie.staging.apache.org/wookie/docs/developer/release.html
(committers only as we have not published this new site yet).

Ross

Re: Release?

[Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com>]

On 1 Apr 2011, at 10:29, Paul Sharples wrote:

> On 01/04/2011 10:11, Paul Sharples wrote:
>> On 01/04/2011 09:11, Scott Wilson wrote:
>>> On 31 Mar 2011, at 22:21, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 31/03/2011 10:54, Paul Sharples wrote:
>>>>> On 14/03/2011 11:48, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>> On 14/03/2011 09:29, Scott Wilson wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> 
>>>> I've done some work on this (finally). I've moved all the docs into our growing CMS based site (but not committed yet as SVN is down right now).
>>>> 
>>>> I've done some testing, but only of the source release since a problem emerged on the Apache servers after I got that zip.
>>>> 
>>>> The first thing that strikes me is that since these candidates were built such a long time ago and since we have done some good work in Wookie since then, should we just build some new release candidates?
>>>> 
>>>> I'm tempted to say no, lets just get this out of the door. Bypass the Ant 1.8 issue by not officially releasing the source versions and following up fairly quickly with 0.9.1?
>>>> 
>>>> Getting two releases out the door quickly will not only look good from a community perspective but will also allow us to fine tune the release process.
>>>> 
>>>> However, if you would prefer to just get one release out then we can build new release candidates now and have the fixes between this release candidate and now included in 0.9
>>>> 
>>>> Thoughts?
>>> My preference is to release 0.9.0 now and move quickly to 0.9.1.
>>> 
>>> For 0.9.0 I think we have two options:
>>> 
>>> 1. Release as-is, with a release note regarding the Ant 1.8 issue
>>> 2. Fix the Ant issue in the 0.9.0 branch first and recreate the packages
>>> 
>>> I'm fine with either.
>>> 
>> 
>> I say we release as is 0.9.0 (all three builds - src, standalone & war), and include any info in the notes.  I think we should then be looking to get another one out very soon.
> 
> Just to expand on that I mean I would rebuild the 0.9.0 branch to recreate the builds with the added KEYS file (containing the commiters public keys) and new updated NOTES file (containing the few issues we found in WOOKIE-181), then sign the binaries.  Additionally the ant build-release tasks also make tar archives which are not currently on my people.apache.org space. (if you want to double check these then use the ant build-release task in the 0.9.0 branch to build them yourself).  Nothing has changed in the branch since i built them last time, so they should in theory be exactly the same.
> 
> Is there anything I've missed?

Sounds good to me

> 
>> 
>>>> Ross
>> 
> 

Re: Release?

[Paul Sharples <p....@bolton.ac.uk>]

On 01/04/2011 10:11, Paul Sharples wrote:
> On 01/04/2011 09:11, Scott Wilson wrote:
>> On 31 Mar 2011, at 22:21, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>
>>> On 31/03/2011 10:54, Paul Sharples wrote:
>>>> On 14/03/2011 11:48, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>> On 14/03/2011 09:29, Scott Wilson wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> I've done some work on this (finally). I've moved all the docs into 
>>> our growing CMS based site (but not committed yet as SVN is down 
>>> right now).
>>>
>>> I've done some testing, but only of the source release since a 
>>> problem emerged on the Apache servers after I got that zip.
>>>
>>> The first thing that strikes me is that since these candidates were 
>>> built such a long time ago and since we have done some good work in 
>>> Wookie since then, should we just build some new release candidates?
>>>
>>> I'm tempted to say no, lets just get this out of the door. Bypass 
>>> the Ant 1.8 issue by not officially releasing the source versions 
>>> and following up fairly quickly with 0.9.1?
>>>
>>> Getting two releases out the door quickly will not only look good 
>>> from a community perspective but will also allow us to fine tune the 
>>> release process.
>>>
>>> However, if you would prefer to just get one release out then we can 
>>> build new release candidates now and have the fixes between this 
>>> release candidate and now included in 0.9
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>> My preference is to release 0.9.0 now and move quickly to 0.9.1.
>>
>> For 0.9.0 I think we have two options:
>>
>> 1. Release as-is, with a release note regarding the Ant 1.8 issue
>> 2. Fix the Ant issue in the 0.9.0 branch first and recreate the packages
>>
>> I'm fine with either.
>>
>
> I say we release as is 0.9.0 (all three builds - src, standalone & 
> war), and include any info in the notes.  I think we should then be 
> looking to get another one out very soon.

Just to expand on that I mean I would rebuild the 0.9.0 branch to 
recreate the builds with the added KEYS file (containing the commiters 
public keys) and new updated NOTES file (containing the few issues we 
found in WOOKIE-181), then sign the binaries.  Additionally the ant 
build-release tasks also make tar archives which are not currently on my 
people.apache.org space. (if you want to double check these then use the 
ant build-release task in the 0.9.0 branch to build them yourself).  
Nothing has changed in the branch since i built them last time, so they 
should in theory be exactly the same.

Is there anything I've missed?

>
>>> Ross
>

Re: Release?

[Paul Sharples <p....@bolton.ac.uk>]

On 01/04/2011 09:11, Scott Wilson wrote:
> On 31 Mar 2011, at 22:21, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>> On 31/03/2011 10:54, Paul Sharples wrote:
>>> On 14/03/2011 11:48, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>> On 14/03/2011 09:29, Scott Wilson wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> I've done some work on this (finally). I've moved all the docs into our growing CMS based site (but not committed yet as SVN is down right now).
>>
>> I've done some testing, but only of the source release since a problem emerged on the Apache servers after I got that zip.
>>
>> The first thing that strikes me is that since these candidates were built such a long time ago and since we have done some good work in Wookie since then, should we just build some new release candidates?
>>
>> I'm tempted to say no, lets just get this out of the door. Bypass the Ant 1.8 issue by not officially releasing the source versions and following up fairly quickly with 0.9.1?
>>
>> Getting two releases out the door quickly will not only look good from a community perspective but will also allow us to fine tune the release process.
>>
>> However, if you would prefer to just get one release out then we can build new release candidates now and have the fixes between this release candidate and now included in 0.9
>>
>> Thoughts?
> My preference is to release 0.9.0 now and move quickly to 0.9.1.
>
> For 0.9.0 I think we have two options:
>
> 1. Release as-is, with a release note regarding the Ant 1.8 issue
> 2. Fix the Ant issue in the 0.9.0 branch first and recreate the packages
>
> I'm fine with either.
>

I say we release as is 0.9.0 (all three builds - src, standalone & war), 
and include any info in the notes.  I think we should then be looking to 
get another one out very soon.

>> Ross

Re: Release?

[Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com>]

On 31 Mar 2011, at 22:21, Ross Gardler wrote:

> On 31/03/2011 10:54, Paul Sharples wrote:
>> On 14/03/2011 11:48, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>> On 14/03/2011 09:29, Scott Wilson wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> I've done some work on this (finally). I've moved all the docs into our growing CMS based site (but not committed yet as SVN is down right now).
> 
> I've done some testing, but only of the source release since a problem emerged on the Apache servers after I got that zip.
> 
> The first thing that strikes me is that since these candidates were built such a long time ago and since we have done some good work in Wookie since then, should we just build some new release candidates?
> 
> I'm tempted to say no, lets just get this out of the door. Bypass the Ant 1.8 issue by not officially releasing the source versions and following up fairly quickly with 0.9.1?
> 
> Getting two releases out the door quickly will not only look good from a community perspective but will also allow us to fine tune the release process.
> 
> However, if you would prefer to just get one release out then we can build new release candidates now and have the fixes between this release candidate and now included in 0.9
> 
> Thoughts?

My preference is to release 0.9.0 now and move quickly to 0.9.1.

For 0.9.0 I think we have two options:

1. Release as-is, with a release note regarding the Ant 1.8 issue
2. Fix the Ant issue in the 0.9.0 branch first and recreate the packages

I'm fine with either.

> 
> Ross

Re: Release?

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

On 31/03/2011 10:54, Paul Sharples wrote:
> On 14/03/2011 11:48, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> On 14/03/2011 09:29, Scott Wilson wrote:

...

I've done some work on this (finally). I've moved all the docs into our 
growing CMS based site (but not committed yet as SVN is down right now).

I've done some testing, but only of the source release since a problem 
emerged on the Apache servers after I got that zip.

The first thing that strikes me is that since these candidates were 
built such a long time ago and since we have done some good work in 
Wookie since then, should we just build some new release candidates?

I'm tempted to say no, lets just get this out of the door. Bypass the 
Ant 1.8 issue by not officially releasing the source versions and 
following up fairly quickly with 0.9.1?

Getting two releases out the door quickly will not only look good from a 
community perspective but will also allow us to fine tune the release 
process.

However, if you would prefer to just get one release out then we can 
build new release candidates now and have the fixes between this release 
candidate and now included in 0.9

Thoughts?

Ross

Re: Release?

[Paul Sharples <p....@bolton.ac.uk>]

On 14/03/2011 11:48, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 14/03/2011 09:29, Scott Wilson wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Its been a while since we released the release candidate binaries -
>> what's the next step?
>
> I'm really sorry I should have picked this up (as should other mentors)
>
>> There were a couple of minor issues with the binaries (x permissions
>> needing to be set, war deployment using jetty) but I think they could
>> be covered in a release note.
>
> Can these be easily fixed and a new binary built? I haven't actually 
> tested the other one and must do so before a vote is called. If the 
> patches are minor then there would be no need for others to test again.
>
> If this is possible then the patches should be applied to the release 
> branch as well as trunk.
>
> If you would prefer to deal with these in docs then the process is:
>
> - ensure people have tested

To move this along, can i confirm which users on the list have tested 
the release build/s? (remember there are 3 - source build, war build and 
standalone)
found at...
http://people.apache.org/~psharples/wookie/staging-area/0p9p0/

> - ensure mentors have reviewed the legal integrity of the release
> - have mentors and committers sign the release
> - call a vote on our dev list
> - if vote passes call a vote on the IPMC list
> - if vote passes make binaries available and announce
>
> Ross
>
>
>

Re: Release?

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

On 14/03/2011 09:29, Scott Wilson wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Its been a while since we released the release candidate binaries -
> what's the next step?

I'm really sorry I should have picked this up (as should other mentors)

> There were a couple of minor issues with the binaries (x permissions
> needing to be set, war deployment using jetty) but I think they could
> be covered in a release note.

Can these be easily fixed and a new binary built? I haven't actually 
tested the other one and must do so before a vote is called. If the 
patches are minor then there would be no need for others to test again.

If this is possible then the patches should be applied to the release 
branch as well as trunk.

If you would prefer to deal with these in docs then the process is:

- ensure people have tested
- ensure mentors have reviewed the legal integrity of the release
- have mentors and committers sign the release
- call a vote on our dev list
- if vote passes call a vote on the IPMC list
- if vote passes make binaries available and announce

Ross



-- 
rgardler@apache.org
@rgardler