You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to derby-dev@db.apache.org by Katherine Marsden <km...@sbcglobal.net> on 2013/02/01 18:09:09 UTC
Re: DERBY 10.9.2 release, was: DERBY 10.9.1.0 release
On 1/31/2013 10:19 AM, Rick Hillegas wrote:
> Hi Lily,
>
> I think you're talking about a 10.9.2 release. Can you let us know
> which parts of the release instructions seem more complicated? I can
> help improve the instructions if you let me know which parts are most
> confusing.
>
I think in terms of the documentation (and the process) I noticed
several major themes in my failed attempts to put a release together.
I am sorry I did not take better notes in detail.
1) The process seems fragile on Windows.
DERBY-5461, DERBY-5463, DERBY-5460 and difficulty integrating an md5sum
tool combined with the chaining of steps together and problems
restarting if something fail due to the made my build something of a
patch work effort, but I did get it out by working around these
issues. On the publication, there is was trouble on windows due to line
endings. I don't really like the fact that it tried to svn commit
without letting me review my change.
2) It would be good to make the documentation more concise.
It is somewhat long, winding and repetitive. There is not a clear
numbering system for the steps and I found I would struggle through
with a step that was briefly mentioned only to find I should have done
it later and was given more detailed information. The interleaving
of instructions from old releases makes it confusing too. I think it
would be ok to just take this out prior to 10.9, but have to admit
sometimes having the old instructions was helpful in moving forward.
3)The process itself seems more complicated and extensive.
Maybe this is again just a function of one and two and the fact that
every time I got an afternoon to look at it, I would collide with
something else, but the process itself seems to have become more
complicated and extensive. (was it 22 pages vs 4 or 5 when I did a 10.5
release?)
I would say at least stay away from Windows if trying to make a release,
but I don't think that is an option for Lily.
Best
Kathey
> Thanks,
> -Rick
>
> On 1/31/13 9:51 AM, Lily Wei wrote:
>>
>> Hi:
>>
>> The release process and procedure had definitely turns out to be more
>> involved than I participated. Compare to the previous release I did,
>> I have to say I am having problem just follow the instruction.
>>
>> Derby is a wonderful product and technology to be more involved.
>> Therefore, I am seeking help from Derby developers. If I can do the
>> build for 10.9.1.0, can someone else help me with publishing and rest
>> of the tasks? For a minimum, we definitely should have clear
>> instruction for more Derby developers to follow. Hopefully, easy to
>> follow steps and procedure can proceed most of the time.
>>
>> Any suggestion is welcome.
>>
>> Thank you so much,
>>
>> Lily
>>
>
>
Re: DERBY 10.9.2 release, was: DERBY 10.9.1.0 release
Posted by Me <m....@gmail.com>.
Re web site build on windows, this has been much improved now that all the docs have eol-style native. Also, a few things have been addressed by making a windows specific section in build.xml.
I think you'll find things are better than when Kathey started 10.8.3.
I'd be willing to help with a possible 10.9.2.
Myrna
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 1, 2013, at 9:09 AM, Katherine Marsden <km...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 1/31/2013 10:19 AM, Rick Hillegas wrote:
>> Hi Lily,
>>
>> I think you're talking about a 10.9.2 release. Can you let us know which parts of the release instructions seem more complicated? I can help improve the instructions if you let me know which parts are most confusing.
> I think in terms of the documentation (and the process) I noticed several major themes in my failed attempts to put a release together. I am sorry I did not take better notes in detail.
>
> 1) The process seems fragile on Windows.
> DERBY-5461, DERBY-5463, DERBY-5460 and difficulty integrating an md5sum tool combined with the chaining of steps together and problems restarting if something fail due to the made my build something of a patch work effort, but I did get it out by working around these issues. On the publication, there is was trouble on windows due to line endings. I don't really like the fact that it tried to svn commit without letting me review my change.
>
> 2) It would be good to make the documentation more concise.
> It is somewhat long, winding and repetitive. There is not a clear numbering system for the steps and I found I would struggle through with a step that was briefly mentioned only to find I should have done it later and was given more detailed information. The interleaving of instructions from old releases makes it confusing too. I think it would be ok to just take this out prior to 10.9, but have to admit sometimes having the old instructions was helpful in moving forward.
>
>
> 3)The process itself seems more complicated and extensive.
> Maybe this is again just a function of one and two and the fact that every time I got an afternoon to look at it, I would collide with something else, but the process itself seems to have become more complicated and extensive. (was it 22 pages vs 4 or 5 when I did a 10.5 release?)
>
> I would say at least stay away from Windows if trying to make a release, but I don't think that is an option for Lily.
>
> Best
>
> Kathey
>
>> Thanks,
>> -Rick
>>
>> On 1/31/13 9:51 AM, Lily Wei wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi:
>>>
>>> The release process and procedure had definitely turns out to be more involved than I participated. Compare to the previous release I did, I have to say I am having problem just follow the instruction.
>>>
>>> Derby is a wonderful product and technology to be more involved. Therefore, I am seeking help from Derby developers. If I can do the build for 10.9.1.0, can someone else help me with publishing and rest of the tasks? For a minimum, we definitely should have clear instruction for more Derby developers to follow. Hopefully, easy to follow steps and procedure can proceed most of the time.
>>>
>>> Any suggestion is welcome.
>>>
>>> Thank you so much,
>>>
>>> Lily
>
Re: DERBY 10.9.2 release, was: DERBY 10.9.1.0 release
Posted by Rick Hillegas <ri...@oracle.com>.
Thanks for this feedback, Kathey. I expect that I will volunteer to
manage the 10.10 release later this year. When I do that, I will keep
your notes in mind and see what I can do to improve the instructions.
Some comments inline...
On 2/1/13 9:09 AM, Katherine Marsden wrote:
> On 1/31/2013 10:19 AM, Rick Hillegas wrote:
>> Hi Lily,
>>
>> I think you're talking about a 10.9.2 release. Can you let us know
>> which parts of the release instructions seem more complicated? I can
>> help improve the instructions if you let me know which parts are most
>> confusing.
>>
> I think in terms of the documentation (and the process) I noticed
> several major themes in my failed attempts to put a release
> together. I am sorry I did not take better notes in detail.
>
> 1) The process seems fragile on Windows.
> DERBY-5461, DERBY-5463, DERBY-5460 and difficulty integrating an
> md5sum tool combined with the chaining of steps together and problems
> restarting if something fail due to the made my build something of a
> patch work effort, but I did get it out by working around these
> issues. On the publication, there is was trouble on windows due to
> line endings. I don't really like the fact that it tried to svn commit
> without letting me review my change.
Thanks for listing these bugs. I will try to take a look at them before
I generate 10.10.
>
> 2) It would be good to make the documentation more concise.
> It is somewhat long, winding and repetitive. There is not a clear
> numbering system for the steps and I found I would struggle through
> with a step that was briefly mentioned only to find I should have done
> it later and was given more detailed information. The interleaving
> of instructions from old releases makes it confusing too. I think it
> would be ok to just take this out prior to 10.9, but have to admit
> sometimes having the old instructions was helpful in moving forward.
One approach I've started experimenting with is this: remove the
instructions for old releases and, instead, direct the user to an older
rev of the wiki page if old instructions are needed.
>
>
> 3)The process itself seems more complicated and extensive.
> Maybe this is again just a function of one and two and the fact that
> every time I got an afternoon to look at it, I would collide with
> something else, but the process itself seems to have become more
> complicated and extensive. (was it 22 pages vs 4 or 5 when I did a
> 10.5 release?)
This one might be cleared up by removing the old instructions as
described above. Without the old instructions, we can judge better
whether the improvements over the last few years have really simplified
the process or just moved the complexity around.
Thanks,
-Rick
>
> I would say at least stay away from Windows if trying to make a
> release, but I don't think that is an option for Lily.
>
> Best
>
> Kathey
>
>> Thanks,
>> -Rick
>>
>> On 1/31/13 9:51 AM, Lily Wei wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi:
>>>
>>> The release process and procedure had definitely turns out to be
>>> more involved than I participated. Compare to the previous release I
>>> did, I have to say I am having problem just follow the instruction.
>>>
>>> Derby is a wonderful product and technology to be more involved.
>>> Therefore, I am seeking help from Derby developers. If I can do the
>>> build for 10.9.1.0, can someone else help me with publishing and
>>> rest of the tasks? For a minimum, we definitely should have clear
>>> instruction for more Derby developers to follow. Hopefully, easy to
>>> follow steps and procedure can proceed most of the time.
>>>
>>> Any suggestion is welcome.
>>>
>>> Thank you so much,
>>>
>>> Lily
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: DERBY 10.9.2 release, was: DERBY 10.9.1.0 release
Posted by Rick Hillegas <ri...@oracle.com>.
On 2/5/13 7:04 AM, Kristian Waagan wrote:
> On 02.02.2013 19:48, Katherine Marsden wrote:
>> I think more than separate instructions, the windows process needs
>> bugs fixed and a thorough debugging and then add to the prep things
>> like a specific md5sum tool and specific settings that make it work.
>
> Regarding the md5sum tool, is there a reason why we don't use the Ant
> checksum target [1]?
Not that I'm aware of. Maybe this ant task didn't exist when the
release-signing code was written 7 years ago.
> Unless we have already ascertained that the target is broken somehow,
> using ant for this sounds like an easy fix.
+1
>
>
Re: DERBY 10.9.2 release, was: DERBY 10.9.1.0 release
Posted by Kristian Waagan <kr...@oracle.com>.
On 02.02.2013 19:48, Katherine Marsden wrote:
> I think more than separate instructions, the windows process needs
> bugs fixed and a thorough debugging and then add to the prep things
> like a specific md5sum tool and specific settings that make it work.
Regarding the md5sum tool, is there a reason why we don't use the Ant
checksum target [1]?
Unless we have already ascertained that the target is broken somehow,
using ant for this sounds like an easy fix.
--
Kristian
[1] https://ant.apache.org/manual/Tasks/checksum.html
Re: DERBY 10.9.2 release, was: DERBY 10.9.1.0 release
Posted by Katherine Marsden <km...@sbcglobal.net>.
On 2/1/2013 10:19 AM, Rick Hillegas wrote:
> Writing a concise set of release instructions is complicated by the
> following issues:
>
> 1) The release process is slightly different for each release branch.
>
I think that really It is fine to just have instructions that
differentiate on the latest maintenance branch and making a new minor
release off trunk. There is a distinction in process in these two that
is not all that clear, so maybe the new doc can have a clearer way to
differentiate the steps. Honestly in retrospect, I think the 10.8.3
Apache release was not that good of an idea for the community for
various reasons, so think having instructions two branches back is a low
priority for the future. I think at any given point active
instructions for the latest released branch and releasing off of trunk
would be good enough. I like having the instructions on the Wiki for
ease of edit and think it could be manageable with just these options.
Changes for old branches can just be edited out and folks can go to the
history if they really need that information.
> 2) The release process is slightly different depending on whether
> you're running on Unix or Windows.
> I don't know what to do about (2). Maybe we need separate release
> instructions for Unix and Windows.
>
I think more than separate instructions, the windows process needs bugs
fixed and a thorough debugging and then add to the prep things like a
specific md5sum tool and specific settings that make it work. I think
once this is done, the instructions between Linux and Windows can
coalesce more gracefully.
Re: DERBY 10.9.2 release, was: DERBY 10.9.1.0 release
Posted by Rick Hillegas <ri...@oracle.com>.
Writing a concise set of release instructions is complicated by the
following issues:
1) The release process is slightly different for each release branch.
2) The release process is slightly different depending on whether you're
running on Unix or Windows.
I don't see how a single set of wiki-maintained instructions can be
concise if the instructions have to include special cases for all of the
variations caused by (1) and (2).
We may be able to address (1) partially by moving the release
instructions off the wiki into the codeline. That way, each branch can
be responsible for documenting its own release process. Unfortunately,
branches live for a long time and it is hard to guarantee that the
process will remain constant over the lifetime of a branch. That is
because parts of the release process are affected by larger Apache
processes which change over the lifetime of a branch.
I don't know what to do about (2). Maybe we need separate release
instructions for Unix and Windows.
Re: DERBY 10.9.2 release, was: DERBY 10.9.1.0 release
Posted by Lily Wei <li...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Kathey and Rick for writing up the details and answering. I only
have the option to do the build on Windows. So, please bear with me.
Overall, I do feel the process is moved the complexity around and beyond.
Personally, I am really glad we start to look into this.
Looking forward to making this a easier process for all the Derby users,
Lily
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Katherine Marsden <
kmarsdenderby@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 1/31/2013 10:19 AM, Rick Hillegas wrote:
>
>> Hi Lily,
>>
>> I think you're talking about a 10.9.2 release. Can you let us know which
>> parts of the release instructions seem more complicated? I can help improve
>> the instructions if you let me know which parts are most confusing.
>>
>> I think in terms of the documentation (and the process) I noticed
> several major themes in my failed attempts to put a release together. I
> am sorry I did not take better notes in detail.
>
> 1) The process seems fragile on Windows.
> DERBY-5461, DERBY-5463, DERBY-5460 and difficulty integrating an md5sum
> tool combined with the chaining of steps together and problems restarting
> if something fail due to the made my build something of a patch work
> effort, but I did get it out by working around these issues. On the
> publication, there is was trouble on windows due to line endings. I don't
> really like the fact that it tried to svn commit without letting me review
> my change.
>
> 2) It would be good to make the documentation more concise.
> It is somewhat long, winding and repetitive. There is not a clear
> numbering system for the steps and I found I would struggle through with a
> step that was briefly mentioned only to find I should have done it later
> and was given more detailed information. The interleaving of
> instructions from old releases makes it confusing too. I think it would be
> ok to just take this out prior to 10.9, but have to admit sometimes having
> the old instructions was helpful in moving forward.
>
>
> 3)The process itself seems more complicated and extensive.
> Maybe this is again just a function of one and two and the fact that
> every time I got an afternoon to look at it, I would collide with something
> else, but the process itself seems to have become more complicated and
> extensive. (was it 22 pages vs 4 or 5 when I did a 10.5 release?)
>
> I would say at least stay away from Windows if trying to make a release,
> but I don't think that is an option for Lily.
>
> Best
>
> Kathey
>
>
> Thanks,
>> -Rick
>>
>> On 1/31/13 9:51 AM, Lily Wei wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi:
>>>
>>> The release process and procedure had definitely turns out to be more
>>> involved than I participated. Compare to the previous release I did, I have
>>> to say I am having problem just follow the instruction.
>>>
>>> Derby is a wonderful product and technology to be more involved.
>>> Therefore, I am seeking help from Derby developers. If I can do the build
>>> for 10.9.1.0, can someone else help me with publishing and rest of the
>>> tasks? For a minimum, we definitely should have clear instruction for more
>>> Derby developers to follow. Hopefully, easy to follow steps and procedure
>>> can proceed most of the time.
>>>
>>> Any suggestion is welcome.
>>>
>>> Thank you so much,
>>>
>>> Lily
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>