You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@freemarker.apache.org by Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu> on 2017/09/20 18:12:45 UTC
Release manager wanted for 2.3.27
Could somebody with commit rights volunteer for this? We have a
step-to-step guide
(http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases), and I
would be present to help with this (through Skype or whatever you
prefer). I want to see (and demonstrate) that in case I'm gone someone
else can do a release.
Thanks a lot!
--
Best regards,
Daniel Dekany
Re: Release manager wanted for 2.3.27
Posted by Woonsan Ko <wo...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Woonsan Ko <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> I've passed along to the step #10:
> - https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/freemarker/engine/2.3.27-incubating-preliminary/
> - https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/staging/org/freemarker/freemarker/2.3.27-incubating/
Staging repo location:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachefreemarker-1010/
Woonsan
>
> The JAPICC were successful in both branches:
>
> [Normal]
>
> Preparing, please wait ...
> WARNING: set #1 version number to 2.3.26 (use --v1=NUM option to change it)
> Using Java 1.8.0_144
> Reading classes 2.3.26 ...
> WARNING: set #2 version number to 2.3.27 (use --v2=NUM option to change it)
> Reading classes 2.3.27 ...
> Comparing classes ...
> Creating compatibility report ...
> Binary compatibility: 100%
> Source compatibility: 100%
> Total binary compatibility problems: 0, warnings: 0
> Total source compatibility problems: 0, warnings: 0
> Report: compat_reports/FreeMarker/2.3.26_to_2.3.27/compat_report.html
>
> [GAE]
>
> Preparing, please wait ...
> WARNING: set #1 version number to 2.3.26 (use --v1=NUM option to change it)
> Using Java 1.8.0_144
> Reading classes 2.3.26 ...
> WARNING: set #2 version number to 2.3.27 (use --v2=NUM option to change it)
> Reading classes 2.3.27 ...
> Comparing classes ...
> Creating compatibility report ...
> Binary compatibility: 100%
> Source compatibility: 100%
> Total binary compatibility problems: 0, warnings: 0
> Total source compatibility problems: 0, warnings: 0
> Report: compat_reports/FreeMarker/2.3.26_to_2.3.27/compat_report.html
>
> Also, my PGP signings were successful:
>
> [echo] Signing "build/dist/apache-freemarker-2.3.27-incubating-bin.tar.gz"...
> ...
> [echo] *** Signature verification: ***
> [exec] gpg: Signature made Tue Oct 3 09:10:25 2017 EDT
> [exec] gpg: using RSA key
> 04DE676E3FFFD9C2DD767C2FA25D65D27C13ADCE
> [exec] gpg: Good signature from "Woonsan Ko <wo...@apache.org>" [ultimate]
>
>
> [echo] Signing "build/dist/apache-freemarker-2.3.27-incubating-src.tar.gz"...
> ...
> [echo] *** Signature verification: ***
> [exec] gpg: Signature made Tue Oct 3 09:11:13 2017 EDT
> [exec] gpg: using RSA key
> 04DE676E3FFFD9C2DD767C2FA25D65D27C13ADCE
> [exec] gpg: Good signature from "Woonsan Ko <wo...@apache.org>" [ultimate]
>
> Please take a review.
>
> Regards,
>
> Woonsan
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Tuesday, October 3, 2017, 2:19:49 AM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>
>>> I've passed along to the step #9
>>> (https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/freemarker/engine/2.3.27-incubating/),
>>
>> A small thing, but we better not use the same path for this
>> preliminary review than for the later voting. Like let's add
>> "-preliminary" to directory name.
>>
>>> except of GAE release artifacts. What is the ant command to build GAE
>>> release artifacts?
>>
>> Same as for the non-GAE branch, but you issue them from the directory
>> of the 2.3-gae branch. (Note that the artifact names differ.)
>>
>> mavenVersion=2.3.27-incubating-SNAPSHOT shouldn't contain "-SNAPSHOT"
>> for the final release.
>>
>> Note that gpg --verify shows a warning because your signature is not
>> signed by anyone else. Not a show stopper as we have discussed, just
>> FYI.
>>
>>> Also, here's the result of JAPICC:
>>>
>>> Preparing, please wait ...
>>> WARNING: set #1 version number to 2.3.26 (use --v1=NUM option to change it)
>>> Using Java 1.8.0_144
>>> Reading classes 2.3.26 ...
>>> WARNING: set #2 version number to 2.3.27 (use --v2=NUM option to change it)
>>> Reading classes 2.3.27 ...
>>> Comparing classes ...
>>> Creating compatibility report ...
>>> Binary compatibility: 99.9%
>>> Source compatibility: 99.9%
>>> Total binary compatibility problems: 1, warnings: 0
>>> Total source compatibility problems: 1, warnings: 0
>>> Report: compat_reports/FreeMarker/2.3.26_to_2.3.27/compat_report.html
>>>
>>> The 'problem' in the html report is as follows:
>>> "Type of field EMPTY_HASH has been changed from
>>> freemarker.template.TemplateHashModelEx to
>>> freemarker.template.TemplateHashModelEx2."
>>>
>>> It seems like a false alarm since I cannot find EMPTY_HASH field in
>>> each file and in each version.
>>
>> It's in freemarker.template.utility.Constants, and the alarm is right,
>> that breaks binary compatibility. (Linking doesn't allow a subtype
>> instead of the type referred from the class file.) I have committed
>> the fix.
>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Woonsan
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Monday, October 2, 2017, 5:19:11 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have two questions regarding the release steps.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Are we supposed to release an RC version ("rc01") now?
>>>>
>>>> I say, no, the changes weren't significant enough, we go for 2.3.27
>>>> straight. But it will be important (as always, actually...) to check
>>>> the binary API compatibility report carefully.
>>>>
>>>> Also, it will be important that others (like OFBiz and Moqui devs) try
>>>> their real world application with the new version artifacts.
>>>>
>>>>> 2. In version.properties of 2.3 branch, do we need to update these only?
>>>>>
>>>>> version=2.3.27-rc01-incubating
>>>>> mavenVersion=2.3.27-incubating-SNAPSHOT # <-- no change here
>>>>> versionForOSGi=2.3.27.rc01-incubating
>>>>> versionForMf=2.3.26.99
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but to non-RC now.
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>>
>>>>> Woonsan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 5:06 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Monday, October 2, 2017, 5:39:40 AM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Saturday, September 30, 2017, 3:39:24 AM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Monday, September 25, 2017, 7:23:14 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to volunteer for that.
>>>>>>>>>>> Assuming there's a voting process, I guess the release process will
>>>>>>>>>>> happen next week or afterward, right?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The actual release yes, but the duty of the Release Manager is to take
>>>>>>>>>> care of the whole process. That's starting with checking if the thing
>>>>>>>>>> is ready and publishing it internally for a preview, then achieving
>>>>>>>>>> community consensus (which for us means a voting on dev@freemarker,
>>>>>>>>>> and if that passes then another voting on general@incubator), then
>>>>>>>>>> actually pushing the distribution. But
>>>>>>>>>> http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases describes
>>>>>>>>>> all these steps. (There are also official resources like
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/#releases and
>>>>>>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html, but the
>>>>>>>>>> point of the how-to is that you don't have to read them.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As you will note if you read the above, you will need a PGP signature
>>>>>>>>>> and certain rights to commit into some repos and to do things on
>>>>>>>>>> Nexus. So you will have to start with requesting those rights.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've added mine to KEYS files in
>>>>>>>>> dist.apache.org/repos/dist/{dev,release}/incubator/freemarker/.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not a PGP expert at all, so I really don't know if these have any
>>>>>>>> practical implications, but two things that I'm not sure about:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Wouldn't it be better to stick to only one of the two public keys?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've reverted the previous addition and added the latest one only again:
>>>>>>> - https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/freemarker/KEYS
>>>>>>> - https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/freemarker/KEYS
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - The pub header in KEYS looks kind of unusual. It used to be like
>>>>>>>> "pub 4096R/82667DC1 2014-07-17", where the 82667DC1 is used on
>>>>>>>> several places to refer to the public key, like in sig-s and all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know. I used the same command as shown in KEYS file:
>>>>>>> (gpg --list-sigs 04...CE && gpg --armor --export 04...CE) >> KEYS
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then I will assume then it's fine until somebody complains... It's not
>>>>>> a blocker in an case, since KEYS is not part of the release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does anyone know the differences?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Last not least, someone from the ASF who knows you in person should
>>>>>>>> sign the key that you release with. The Ring of Trust thing, you
>>>>>>>> know... (I guess it's good enough if I do it, when the above key
>>>>>>>> question is settled.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure if it is required. In my experiences, it is good enough
>>>>>>> to register your public key in one of the most popular key server as
>>>>>>> the Nexus checks it from it, like Apache releases are usually
>>>>>>> verified. [1]
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=Woonsan+Ko&op=index&fingerprint=on
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not aware of a formal requirement either, but maybe some on
>>>>>> general@incubator won't like it. Anyway, it doesn't block the release
>>>>>> process, as it can be signed any time later (as it doesn't affect your
>>>>>> key pair, it doesn't affect the signed artifact... I think).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Woonsan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] https://www.apache.org/info/verification.html#CheckingSignatures
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And, I was able to log on the Nexus and browse repository and staging
>>>>>>>>> repository.
>>>>>>>>> The next is to follow "The steps of making a release" section?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm just investigating some backward compatibility issue, but
>>>>>>>> otherwise yes. (I have updated it a bit BTW.) Are you using some kind
>>>>>>>> of instant messaging or chat room or such? E-mail will be too slow I
>>>>>>>> think. (Screen sharing and voice can come handy as well sometimes. If
>>>>>>>> you happen to use Skype, I'm there.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Woonsan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm asking this because my laptop got broken before the last week
>>>>>>>>>>> and I'm waiting for a new laptop to be delivered this week. If it is
>>>>>>>>>>> next week or afterward, I'll be prepared properly.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If in the light of the above you are still willing to do this, I will
>>>>>>>>>> wait.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Woonsan
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Could somebody with commit rights volunteer for this? We have a
>>>>>>>>>>>> step-to-step guide
>>>>>>>>>>>> (http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases), and I
>>>>>>>>>>>> would be present to help with this (through Skype or whatever you
>>>>>>>>>>>> prefer). I want to see (and demonstrate) that in case I'm gone someone
>>>>>>>>>>>> else can do a release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Daniel Dekany
>>
Re: Release manager wanted for 2.3.27
Posted by Woonsan Ko <wo...@apache.org>.
Hi Daniel,
I've passed along to the step #10:
- https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/freemarker/engine/2.3.27-incubating-preliminary/
- https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/staging/org/freemarker/freemarker/2.3.27-incubating/
The JAPICC were successful in both branches:
[Normal]
Preparing, please wait ...
WARNING: set #1 version number to 2.3.26 (use --v1=NUM option to change it)
Using Java 1.8.0_144
Reading classes 2.3.26 ...
WARNING: set #2 version number to 2.3.27 (use --v2=NUM option to change it)
Reading classes 2.3.27 ...
Comparing classes ...
Creating compatibility report ...
Binary compatibility: 100%
Source compatibility: 100%
Total binary compatibility problems: 0, warnings: 0
Total source compatibility problems: 0, warnings: 0
Report: compat_reports/FreeMarker/2.3.26_to_2.3.27/compat_report.html
[GAE]
Preparing, please wait ...
WARNING: set #1 version number to 2.3.26 (use --v1=NUM option to change it)
Using Java 1.8.0_144
Reading classes 2.3.26 ...
WARNING: set #2 version number to 2.3.27 (use --v2=NUM option to change it)
Reading classes 2.3.27 ...
Comparing classes ...
Creating compatibility report ...
Binary compatibility: 100%
Source compatibility: 100%
Total binary compatibility problems: 0, warnings: 0
Total source compatibility problems: 0, warnings: 0
Report: compat_reports/FreeMarker/2.3.26_to_2.3.27/compat_report.html
Also, my PGP signings were successful:
[echo] Signing "build/dist/apache-freemarker-2.3.27-incubating-bin.tar.gz"...
...
[echo] *** Signature verification: ***
[exec] gpg: Signature made Tue Oct 3 09:10:25 2017 EDT
[exec] gpg: using RSA key
04DE676E3FFFD9C2DD767C2FA25D65D27C13ADCE
[exec] gpg: Good signature from "Woonsan Ko <wo...@apache.org>" [ultimate]
[echo] Signing "build/dist/apache-freemarker-2.3.27-incubating-src.tar.gz"...
...
[echo] *** Signature verification: ***
[exec] gpg: Signature made Tue Oct 3 09:11:13 2017 EDT
[exec] gpg: using RSA key
04DE676E3FFFD9C2DD767C2FA25D65D27C13ADCE
[exec] gpg: Good signature from "Woonsan Ko <wo...@apache.org>" [ultimate]
Please take a review.
Regards,
Woonsan
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Tuesday, October 3, 2017, 2:19:49 AM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> I've passed along to the step #9
>> (https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/freemarker/engine/2.3.27-incubating/),
>
> A small thing, but we better not use the same path for this
> preliminary review than for the later voting. Like let's add
> "-preliminary" to directory name.
>
>> except of GAE release artifacts. What is the ant command to build GAE
>> release artifacts?
>
> Same as for the non-GAE branch, but you issue them from the directory
> of the 2.3-gae branch. (Note that the artifact names differ.)
>
> mavenVersion=2.3.27-incubating-SNAPSHOT shouldn't contain "-SNAPSHOT"
> for the final release.
>
> Note that gpg --verify shows a warning because your signature is not
> signed by anyone else. Not a show stopper as we have discussed, just
> FYI.
>
>> Also, here's the result of JAPICC:
>>
>> Preparing, please wait ...
>> WARNING: set #1 version number to 2.3.26 (use --v1=NUM option to change it)
>> Using Java 1.8.0_144
>> Reading classes 2.3.26 ...
>> WARNING: set #2 version number to 2.3.27 (use --v2=NUM option to change it)
>> Reading classes 2.3.27 ...
>> Comparing classes ...
>> Creating compatibility report ...
>> Binary compatibility: 99.9%
>> Source compatibility: 99.9%
>> Total binary compatibility problems: 1, warnings: 0
>> Total source compatibility problems: 1, warnings: 0
>> Report: compat_reports/FreeMarker/2.3.26_to_2.3.27/compat_report.html
>>
>> The 'problem' in the html report is as follows:
>> "Type of field EMPTY_HASH has been changed from
>> freemarker.template.TemplateHashModelEx to
>> freemarker.template.TemplateHashModelEx2."
>>
>> It seems like a false alarm since I cannot find EMPTY_HASH field in
>> each file and in each version.
>
> It's in freemarker.template.utility.Constants, and the alarm is right,
> that breaks binary compatibility. (Linking doesn't allow a subtype
> instead of the type referred from the class file.) I have committed
> the fix.
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Woonsan
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Monday, October 2, 2017, 5:19:11 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>>
>>>> I have two questions regarding the release steps.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Are we supposed to release an RC version ("rc01") now?
>>>
>>> I say, no, the changes weren't significant enough, we go for 2.3.27
>>> straight. But it will be important (as always, actually...) to check
>>> the binary API compatibility report carefully.
>>>
>>> Also, it will be important that others (like OFBiz and Moqui devs) try
>>> their real world application with the new version artifacts.
>>>
>>>> 2. In version.properties of 2.3 branch, do we need to update these only?
>>>>
>>>> version=2.3.27-rc01-incubating
>>>> mavenVersion=2.3.27-incubating-SNAPSHOT # <-- no change here
>>>> versionForOSGi=2.3.27.rc01-incubating
>>>> versionForMf=2.3.26.99
>>>
>>> Yes, but to non-RC now.
>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>
>>>> Woonsan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 5:06 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> Monday, October 2, 2017, 5:39:40 AM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Saturday, September 30, 2017, 3:39:24 AM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Monday, September 25, 2017, 7:23:14 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to volunteer for that.
>>>>>>>>>> Assuming there's a voting process, I guess the release process will
>>>>>>>>>> happen next week or afterward, right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The actual release yes, but the duty of the Release Manager is to take
>>>>>>>>> care of the whole process. That's starting with checking if the thing
>>>>>>>>> is ready and publishing it internally for a preview, then achieving
>>>>>>>>> community consensus (which for us means a voting on dev@freemarker,
>>>>>>>>> and if that passes then another voting on general@incubator), then
>>>>>>>>> actually pushing the distribution. But
>>>>>>>>> http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases describes
>>>>>>>>> all these steps. (There are also official resources like
>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/#releases and
>>>>>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html, but the
>>>>>>>>> point of the how-to is that you don't have to read them.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As you will note if you read the above, you will need a PGP signature
>>>>>>>>> and certain rights to commit into some repos and to do things on
>>>>>>>>> Nexus. So you will have to start with requesting those rights.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've added mine to KEYS files in
>>>>>>>> dist.apache.org/repos/dist/{dev,release}/incubator/freemarker/.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not a PGP expert at all, so I really don't know if these have any
>>>>>>> practical implications, but two things that I'm not sure about:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Wouldn't it be better to stick to only one of the two public keys?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've reverted the previous addition and added the latest one only again:
>>>>>> - https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/freemarker/KEYS
>>>>>> - https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/freemarker/KEYS
>>>>>
>>>>> OK
>>>>>
>>>>>>> - The pub header in KEYS looks kind of unusual. It used to be like
>>>>>>> "pub 4096R/82667DC1 2014-07-17", where the 82667DC1 is used on
>>>>>>> several places to refer to the public key, like in sig-s and all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know. I used the same command as shown in KEYS file:
>>>>>> (gpg --list-sigs 04...CE && gpg --armor --export 04...CE) >> KEYS
>>>>>
>>>>> Then I will assume then it's fine until somebody complains... It's not
>>>>> a blocker in an case, since KEYS is not part of the release.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Does anyone know the differences?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Last not least, someone from the ASF who knows you in person should
>>>>>>> sign the key that you release with. The Ring of Trust thing, you
>>>>>>> know... (I guess it's good enough if I do it, when the above key
>>>>>>> question is settled.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure if it is required. In my experiences, it is good enough
>>>>>> to register your public key in one of the most popular key server as
>>>>>> the Nexus checks it from it, like Apache releases are usually
>>>>>> verified. [1]
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=Woonsan+Ko&op=index&fingerprint=on
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not aware of a formal requirement either, but maybe some on
>>>>> general@incubator won't like it. Anyway, it doesn't block the release
>>>>> process, as it can be signed any time later (as it doesn't affect your
>>>>> key pair, it doesn't affect the signed artifact... I think).
>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Woonsan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] https://www.apache.org/info/verification.html#CheckingSignatures
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And, I was able to log on the Nexus and browse repository and staging
>>>>>>>> repository.
>>>>>>>> The next is to follow "The steps of making a release" section?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm just investigating some backward compatibility issue, but
>>>>>>> otherwise yes. (I have updated it a bit BTW.) Are you using some kind
>>>>>>> of instant messaging or chat room or such? E-mail will be too slow I
>>>>>>> think. (Screen sharing and voice can come handy as well sometimes. If
>>>>>>> you happen to use Skype, I'm there.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Woonsan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm asking this because my laptop got broken before the last week
>>>>>>>>>> and I'm waiting for a new laptop to be delivered this week. If it is
>>>>>>>>>> next week or afterward, I'll be prepared properly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If in the light of the above you are still willing to do this, I will
>>>>>>>>> wait.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Woonsan
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Could somebody with commit rights volunteer for this? We have a
>>>>>>>>>>> step-to-step guide
>>>>>>>>>>> (http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases), and I
>>>>>>>>>>> would be present to help with this (through Skype or whatever you
>>>>>>>>>>> prefer). I want to see (and demonstrate) that in case I'm gone someone
>>>>>>>>>>> else can do a release.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks,
>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Daniel Dekany
>
Re: 2.3.27 release delay...
Posted by Woonsan Ko <wo...@apache.org>.
I did a mistake by committing and pushing asf-site docs and apidocs
directly. :-(
I'll revert it and upload the docs into
builds/2.3.27-voting/documentation/ again.
Sorry for this.
Regards,
Woonsan
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:13 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
> OK, ot looks good to me. We can continue!
>
>
> Monday, October 16, 2017, 8:11:22 AM, Daniel Dekany wrote:
>
>> Monday, October 16, 2017, 4:23:45 AM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>
>>> Thank you very much for fixing the issues!
>>>
>>> I've just completed the steps to #10 [1] in both 2.3 and 2.3-gae branches.
>>>
>>> All the artifacts of both FreeMarker-2.3.27 and FreeMarker-GAE-2.3.27
>>> were uploaded here:
>>> -
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/freemarker/engine/2.3.27-incubating-preliminary/
>>>
>>> Also, maven staging repositories were closed here for both:
>>> - [FreeMarker-2.3.27]
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachefreemarker-1011/
>>> - [FreeMarker-GAE-2.3.27]
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachefreemarker-1012/
>>>
>>> PGP signatures were verified:
>>>
>>> [echo] *** Signature verification: ***
>>> [exec] gpg: Signature made Sun Oct 15 21:19:54 2017 EDT
>>> [exec] gpg: using RSA key
>>> 04DE676E3FFFD9C2DD767C2FA25D65D27C13ADCE
>>> [exec] gpg: Good signature from "Woonsan Ko <wo...@apache.org>"
>>> [ultimate]
>>> [input] Is the above signer the intended one for Apache releases? (y, n)
>>> y
>>> // ...
>>> [echo] *** Signature verification: ***
>>> [exec] gpg: Signature made Sun Oct 15 21:20:05 2017 EDT
>>> [exec] gpg: using RSA key
>>> 04DE676E3FFFD9C2DD767C2FA25D65D27C13ADCE
>>> [exec] gpg: Good signature from "Woonsan Ko <wo...@apache.org>"
>>> [ultimate]
>>> [input] Is the above signer the intended one for Apache releases? (y, n)
>>> y
>>> // ...
>>>
>>> Java API Compliance Checker results were positive, too, in both branches:
>>>
>>> Binary compatibility: 100%
>>> Source compatibility: 100%
>>> Total binary compatibility problems: 0, warnings: 0
>>> Total source compatibility problems: 0, warnings: 0
>>>
>>> Please take a review.
>>
>> I will soon hopefully.
>>
>> Please write down what do you think should be improved in the
>> documentation of the process, or in the process itself.
>>
>> (BTW, version.properties changes can be merged from 2.3-gae as well;
>> it need not be done separately in 2.3.)
>>
>>> I have one question regarding the step #11. What is 'the release
>>> documentation'?
>>
>> It's just the documentation (the Manual) of the release. It's for
>> convenience for the voters, and that's where the link to the change
>> log points to in the vote mail.
>>
>>> And I couldn't find a previous release documentation
>>> (e.g, http://freemarker.org/builds/2.3.26-voting/documentation/).
>>
>> It was deleted after the voting.
>>
>>> Could you please give a hint?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Woonsan
>>>
>>> [1] http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> All right, I think we are ready again... the release process can be
>>>> started.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tuesday, October 3, 2017, 5:01:22 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>> I was looking into the Java Beans indexed property related changes,
>>>>>> and have realized that it exposes long existing oversight, that didn't
>>>>>> affect us earlier because the indexed property reader has always
>>>>>> shadowed the normal reader method, which is in fact wrong in rare
>>>>>> cases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will also look into
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FREEMARKER-80 (reported today).
>>>>>> If we are lucky, it can be "fixed" without too much mess.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have also realized that some Java 9 testing will be needed. Just for
>>>>>> starters, our XML wrapper won't be able to use the internal Xerces of
>>>>>> Java, so one has to add a normal Xerces to the classpath or Jaxen to
>>>>>> use XPath... which should be documented. Also, java.bean.Introspector
>>>>>> behavioral changes (if there was any) like to break things (as they
>>>>>> did in Java 8). It would be unfortunate if that happens due to the
>>>>>> default method related workarounds added in 2.3.27.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry Woonsan if it this additional iteration causes extra work... as
>>>>>> I seen you have recently upload another preliminary version.
>>>>>
>>>>> No worries at all! We'll start it again when ready. No big deal from my end.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Woonsan
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Daniel Dekany
>
Re: 2.3.27 release delay...
Posted by Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org>.
OK, ot looks good to me. We can continue!
Monday, October 16, 2017, 8:11:22 AM, Daniel Dekany wrote:
> Monday, October 16, 2017, 4:23:45 AM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> Thank you very much for fixing the issues!
>>
>> I've just completed the steps to #10 [1] in both 2.3 and 2.3-gae branches.
>>
>> All the artifacts of both FreeMarker-2.3.27 and FreeMarker-GAE-2.3.27
>> were uploaded here:
>> -
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/freemarker/engine/2.3.27-incubating-preliminary/
>>
>> Also, maven staging repositories were closed here for both:
>> - [FreeMarker-2.3.27]
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachefreemarker-1011/
>> - [FreeMarker-GAE-2.3.27]
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachefreemarker-1012/
>>
>> PGP signatures were verified:
>>
>> [echo] *** Signature verification: ***
>> [exec] gpg: Signature made Sun Oct 15 21:19:54 2017 EDT
>> [exec] gpg: using RSA key
>> 04DE676E3FFFD9C2DD767C2FA25D65D27C13ADCE
>> [exec] gpg: Good signature from "Woonsan Ko <wo...@apache.org>"
>> [ultimate]
>> [input] Is the above signer the intended one for Apache releases? (y, n)
>> y
>> // ...
>> [echo] *** Signature verification: ***
>> [exec] gpg: Signature made Sun Oct 15 21:20:05 2017 EDT
>> [exec] gpg: using RSA key
>> 04DE676E3FFFD9C2DD767C2FA25D65D27C13ADCE
>> [exec] gpg: Good signature from "Woonsan Ko <wo...@apache.org>"
>> [ultimate]
>> [input] Is the above signer the intended one for Apache releases? (y, n)
>> y
>> // ...
>>
>> Java API Compliance Checker results were positive, too, in both branches:
>>
>> Binary compatibility: 100%
>> Source compatibility: 100%
>> Total binary compatibility problems: 0, warnings: 0
>> Total source compatibility problems: 0, warnings: 0
>>
>> Please take a review.
>
> I will soon hopefully.
>
> Please write down what do you think should be improved in the
> documentation of the process, or in the process itself.
>
> (BTW, version.properties changes can be merged from 2.3-gae as well;
> it need not be done separately in 2.3.)
>
>> I have one question regarding the step #11. What is 'the release
>> documentation'?
>
> It's just the documentation (the Manual) of the release. It's for
> convenience for the voters, and that's where the link to the change
> log points to in the vote mail.
>
>> And I couldn't find a previous release documentation
>> (e.g, http://freemarker.org/builds/2.3.26-voting/documentation/).
>
> It was deleted after the voting.
>
>> Could you please give a hint?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Woonsan
>>
>> [1] http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> All right, I think we are ready again... the release process can be
>>> started.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tuesday, October 3, 2017, 5:01:22 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> I was looking into the Java Beans indexed property related changes,
>>>>> and have realized that it exposes long existing oversight, that didn't
>>>>> affect us earlier because the indexed property reader has always
>>>>> shadowed the normal reader method, which is in fact wrong in rare
>>>>> cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will also look into
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FREEMARKER-80 (reported today).
>>>>> If we are lucky, it can be "fixed" without too much mess.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have also realized that some Java 9 testing will be needed. Just for
>>>>> starters, our XML wrapper won't be able to use the internal Xerces of
>>>>> Java, so one has to add a normal Xerces to the classpath or Jaxen to
>>>>> use XPath... which should be documented. Also, java.bean.Introspector
>>>>> behavioral changes (if there was any) like to break things (as they
>>>>> did in Java 8). It would be unfortunate if that happens due to the
>>>>> default method related workarounds added in 2.3.27.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry Woonsan if it this additional iteration causes extra work... as
>>>>> I seen you have recently upload another preliminary version.
>>>>
>>>> No worries at all! We'll start it again when ready. No big deal from my end.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Woonsan
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks,
>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>
>>
>
--
Thanks,
Daniel Dekany
Re: 2.3.27 release delay...
Posted by Woonsan Ko <wo...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
<snip>
>
> Please write down what do you think should be improved in the
> documentation of the process, or in the process itself.
Yeah, I'll review the course I have passed and try to suggest
somethings for improvements in the documentation.
>
> (BTW, version.properties changes can be merged from 2.3-gae as well;
> it need not be done separately in 2.3.)
I see.
Thanks,
Woonsan
Re: 2.3.27 release delay...
Posted by Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org>.
Monday, October 16, 2017, 4:23:45 AM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Thank you very much for fixing the issues!
>
> I've just completed the steps to #10 [1] in both 2.3 and 2.3-gae branches.
>
> All the artifacts of both FreeMarker-2.3.27 and FreeMarker-GAE-2.3.27
> were uploaded here:
> -
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/freemarker/engine/2.3.27-incubating-preliminary/
>
> Also, maven staging repositories were closed here for both:
> - [FreeMarker-2.3.27]
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachefreemarker-1011/
> - [FreeMarker-GAE-2.3.27]
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachefreemarker-1012/
>
> PGP signatures were verified:
>
> [echo] *** Signature verification: ***
> [exec] gpg: Signature made Sun Oct 15 21:19:54 2017 EDT
> [exec] gpg: using RSA key
> 04DE676E3FFFD9C2DD767C2FA25D65D27C13ADCE
> [exec] gpg: Good signature from "Woonsan Ko <wo...@apache.org>"
> [ultimate]
> [input] Is the above signer the intended one for Apache releases? (y, n)
> y
> // ...
> [echo] *** Signature verification: ***
> [exec] gpg: Signature made Sun Oct 15 21:20:05 2017 EDT
> [exec] gpg: using RSA key
> 04DE676E3FFFD9C2DD767C2FA25D65D27C13ADCE
> [exec] gpg: Good signature from "Woonsan Ko <wo...@apache.org>"
> [ultimate]
> [input] Is the above signer the intended one for Apache releases? (y, n)
> y
> // ...
>
> Java API Compliance Checker results were positive, too, in both branches:
>
> Binary compatibility: 100%
> Source compatibility: 100%
> Total binary compatibility problems: 0, warnings: 0
> Total source compatibility problems: 0, warnings: 0
>
> Please take a review.
I will soon hopefully.
Please write down what do you think should be improved in the
documentation of the process, or in the process itself.
(BTW, version.properties changes can be merged from 2.3-gae as well;
it need not be done separately in 2.3.)
> I have one question regarding the step #11. What is 'the release
> documentation'?
It's just the documentation (the Manual) of the release. It's for
convenience for the voters, and that's where the link to the change
log points to in the vote mail.
> And I couldn't find a previous release documentation
> (e.g, http://freemarker.org/builds/2.3.26-voting/documentation/).
It was deleted after the voting.
> Could you please give a hint?
>
> Regards,
>
> Woonsan
>
> [1] http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases
>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> All right, I think we are ready again... the release process can be
>> started.
>>
>>
>> Tuesday, October 3, 2017, 5:01:22 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> I was looking into the Java Beans indexed property related changes,
>>>> and have realized that it exposes long existing oversight, that didn't
>>>> affect us earlier because the indexed property reader has always
>>>> shadowed the normal reader method, which is in fact wrong in rare
>>>> cases.
>>>>
>>>> I will also look into
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FREEMARKER-80 (reported today).
>>>> If we are lucky, it can be "fixed" without too much mess.
>>>>
>>>> I have also realized that some Java 9 testing will be needed. Just for
>>>> starters, our XML wrapper won't be able to use the internal Xerces of
>>>> Java, so one has to add a normal Xerces to the classpath or Jaxen to
>>>> use XPath... which should be documented. Also, java.bean.Introspector
>>>> behavioral changes (if there was any) like to break things (as they
>>>> did in Java 8). It would be unfortunate if that happens due to the
>>>> default method related workarounds added in 2.3.27.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry Woonsan if it this additional iteration causes extra work... as
>>>> I seen you have recently upload another preliminary version.
>>>
>>> No worries at all! We'll start it again when ready. No big deal from my end.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Woonsan
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Daniel Dekany
>>
>
--
Thanks,
Daniel Dekany
Re: 2.3.27 release delay...
Posted by Woonsan Ko <wo...@apache.org>.
Hi Daniel,
Thank you very much for fixing the issues!
I've just completed the steps to #10 [1] in both 2.3 and 2.3-gae branches.
All the artifacts of both FreeMarker-2.3.27 and FreeMarker-GAE-2.3.27
were uploaded here:
- https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/freemarker/engine/2.3.27-incubating-preliminary/
Also, maven staging repositories were closed here for both:
- [FreeMarker-2.3.27]
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachefreemarker-1011/
- [FreeMarker-GAE-2.3.27]
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachefreemarker-1012/
PGP signatures were verified:
[echo] *** Signature verification: ***
[exec] gpg: Signature made Sun Oct 15 21:19:54 2017 EDT
[exec] gpg: using RSA key
04DE676E3FFFD9C2DD767C2FA25D65D27C13ADCE
[exec] gpg: Good signature from "Woonsan Ko <wo...@apache.org>"
[ultimate]
[input] Is the above signer the intended one for Apache releases? (y, n)
y
// ...
[echo] *** Signature verification: ***
[exec] gpg: Signature made Sun Oct 15 21:20:05 2017 EDT
[exec] gpg: using RSA key
04DE676E3FFFD9C2DD767C2FA25D65D27C13ADCE
[exec] gpg: Good signature from "Woonsan Ko <wo...@apache.org>"
[ultimate]
[input] Is the above signer the intended one for Apache releases? (y, n)
y
// ...
Java API Compliance Checker results were positive, too, in both branches:
Binary compatibility: 100%
Source compatibility: 100%
Total binary compatibility problems: 0, warnings: 0
Total source compatibility problems: 0, warnings: 0
Please take a review.
I have one question regarding the step #11. What is 'the release
documentation'? And I couldn't find a previous release documentation
(e.g, http://freemarker.org/builds/2.3.26-voting/documentation/).
Could you please give a hint?
Regards,
Woonsan
[1] http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
> All right, I think we are ready again... the release process can be
> started.
>
>
> Tuesday, October 3, 2017, 5:01:22 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> I was looking into the Java Beans indexed property related changes,
>>> and have realized that it exposes long existing oversight, that didn't
>>> affect us earlier because the indexed property reader has always
>>> shadowed the normal reader method, which is in fact wrong in rare
>>> cases.
>>>
>>> I will also look into
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FREEMARKER-80 (reported today).
>>> If we are lucky, it can be "fixed" without too much mess.
>>>
>>> I have also realized that some Java 9 testing will be needed. Just for
>>> starters, our XML wrapper won't be able to use the internal Xerces of
>>> Java, so one has to add a normal Xerces to the classpath or Jaxen to
>>> use XPath... which should be documented. Also, java.bean.Introspector
>>> behavioral changes (if there was any) like to break things (as they
>>> did in Java 8). It would be unfortunate if that happens due to the
>>> default method related workarounds added in 2.3.27.
>>>
>>> Sorry Woonsan if it this additional iteration causes extra work... as
>>> I seen you have recently upload another preliminary version.
>>
>> No worries at all! We'll start it again when ready. No big deal from my end.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Woonsan
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks,
>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Daniel Dekany
>
Re: 2.3.27 release delay...
Posted by Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org>.
All right, I think we are ready again... the release process can be
started.
Tuesday, October 3, 2017, 5:01:22 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I was looking into the Java Beans indexed property related changes,
>> and have realized that it exposes long existing oversight, that didn't
>> affect us earlier because the indexed property reader has always
>> shadowed the normal reader method, which is in fact wrong in rare
>> cases.
>>
>> I will also look into
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FREEMARKER-80 (reported today).
>> If we are lucky, it can be "fixed" without too much mess.
>>
>> I have also realized that some Java 9 testing will be needed. Just for
>> starters, our XML wrapper won't be able to use the internal Xerces of
>> Java, so one has to add a normal Xerces to the classpath or Jaxen to
>> use XPath... which should be documented. Also, java.bean.Introspector
>> behavioral changes (if there was any) like to break things (as they
>> did in Java 8). It would be unfortunate if that happens due to the
>> default method related workarounds added in 2.3.27.
>>
>> Sorry Woonsan if it this additional iteration causes extra work... as
>> I seen you have recently upload another preliminary version.
>
> No worries at all! We'll start it again when ready. No big deal from my end.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Woonsan
>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Daniel Dekany
>>
>
--
Thanks,
Daniel Dekany
Re: 2.3.27 release delay...
Posted by Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org>.
Since then I have done the Java 9 testing (and some fixing... see
updated http://freemarker.org/builds/fm2.3.27/versions_2_3_27.html),
and FREEMARKER-80 addressed. So hopefully we will soon start the
release process again, but for now I'm waiting for feedback on
FREEMARKER-80. Also I found that the BeansWrapper changes are a bit
scary after all, so some feedback from people here is also highly
welcome.
Tuesday, October 3, 2017, 5:01:22 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I was looking into the Java Beans indexed property related changes,
>> and have realized that it exposes long existing oversight, that didn't
>> affect us earlier because the indexed property reader has always
>> shadowed the normal reader method, which is in fact wrong in rare
>> cases.
>>
>> I will also look into
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FREEMARKER-80 (reported today).
>> If we are lucky, it can be "fixed" without too much mess.
>>
>> I have also realized that some Java 9 testing will be needed. Just for
>> starters, our XML wrapper won't be able to use the internal Xerces of
>> Java, so one has to add a normal Xerces to the classpath or Jaxen to
>> use XPath... which should be documented. Also, java.bean.Introspector
>> behavioral changes (if there was any) like to break things (as they
>> did in Java 8). It would be unfortunate if that happens due to the
>> default method related workarounds added in 2.3.27.
>>
>> Sorry Woonsan if it this additional iteration causes extra work... as
>> I seen you have recently upload another preliminary version.
>
> No worries at all! We'll start it again when ready. No big deal from my end.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Woonsan
>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Daniel Dekany
>>
>
--
Thanks,
Daniel Dekany
Re: 2.3.27 release delay...
Posted by Woonsan Ko <wo...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
> I was looking into the Java Beans indexed property related changes,
> and have realized that it exposes long existing oversight, that didn't
> affect us earlier because the indexed property reader has always
> shadowed the normal reader method, which is in fact wrong in rare
> cases.
>
> I will also look into
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FREEMARKER-80 (reported today).
> If we are lucky, it can be "fixed" without too much mess.
>
> I have also realized that some Java 9 testing will be needed. Just for
> starters, our XML wrapper won't be able to use the internal Xerces of
> Java, so one has to add a normal Xerces to the classpath or Jaxen to
> use XPath... which should be documented. Also, java.bean.Introspector
> behavioral changes (if there was any) like to break things (as they
> did in Java 8). It would be unfortunate if that happens due to the
> default method related workarounds added in 2.3.27.
>
> Sorry Woonsan if it this additional iteration causes extra work... as
> I seen you have recently upload another preliminary version.
No worries at all! We'll start it again when ready. No big deal from my end.
Cheers,
Woonsan
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Daniel Dekany
>
2.3.27 release delay...
Posted by Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org>.
I was looking into the Java Beans indexed property related changes,
and have realized that it exposes long existing oversight, that didn't
affect us earlier because the indexed property reader has always
shadowed the normal reader method, which is in fact wrong in rare
cases.
I will also look into
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FREEMARKER-80 (reported today).
If we are lucky, it can be "fixed" without too much mess.
I have also realized that some Java 9 testing will be needed. Just for
starters, our XML wrapper won't be able to use the internal Xerces of
Java, so one has to add a normal Xerces to the classpath or Jaxen to
use XPath... which should be documented. Also, java.bean.Introspector
behavioral changes (if there was any) like to break things (as they
did in Java 8). It would be unfortunate if that happens due to the
default method related workarounds added in 2.3.27.
Sorry Woonsan if it this additional iteration causes extra work... as
I seen you have recently upload another preliminary version.
--
Thanks,
Daniel Dekany
Re: Release manager wanted for 2.3.27
Posted by Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org>.
Tuesday, October 3, 2017, 2:19:49 AM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> I've passed along to the step #9
> (https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/freemarker/engine/2.3.27-incubating/),
A small thing, but we better not use the same path for this
preliminary review than for the later voting. Like let's add
"-preliminary" to directory name.
> except of GAE release artifacts. What is the ant command to build GAE
> release artifacts?
Same as for the non-GAE branch, but you issue them from the directory
of the 2.3-gae branch. (Note that the artifact names differ.)
mavenVersion=2.3.27-incubating-SNAPSHOT shouldn't contain "-SNAPSHOT"
for the final release.
Note that gpg --verify shows a warning because your signature is not
signed by anyone else. Not a show stopper as we have discussed, just
FYI.
> Also, here's the result of JAPICC:
>
> Preparing, please wait ...
> WARNING: set #1 version number to 2.3.26 (use --v1=NUM option to change it)
> Using Java 1.8.0_144
> Reading classes 2.3.26 ...
> WARNING: set #2 version number to 2.3.27 (use --v2=NUM option to change it)
> Reading classes 2.3.27 ...
> Comparing classes ...
> Creating compatibility report ...
> Binary compatibility: 99.9%
> Source compatibility: 99.9%
> Total binary compatibility problems: 1, warnings: 0
> Total source compatibility problems: 1, warnings: 0
> Report: compat_reports/FreeMarker/2.3.26_to_2.3.27/compat_report.html
>
> The 'problem' in the html report is as follows:
> "Type of field EMPTY_HASH has been changed from
> freemarker.template.TemplateHashModelEx to
> freemarker.template.TemplateHashModelEx2."
>
> It seems like a false alarm since I cannot find EMPTY_HASH field in
> each file and in each version.
It's in freemarker.template.utility.Constants, and the alarm is right,
that breaks binary compatibility. (Linking doesn't allow a subtype
instead of the type referred from the class file.) I have committed
the fix.
> Regards,
>
> Woonsan
>
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Monday, October 2, 2017, 5:19:11 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>
>>> I have two questions regarding the release steps.
>>>
>>> 1. Are we supposed to release an RC version ("rc01") now?
>>
>> I say, no, the changes weren't significant enough, we go for 2.3.27
>> straight. But it will be important (as always, actually...) to check
>> the binary API compatibility report carefully.
>>
>> Also, it will be important that others (like OFBiz and Moqui devs) try
>> their real world application with the new version artifacts.
>>
>>> 2. In version.properties of 2.3 branch, do we need to update these only?
>>>
>>> version=2.3.27-rc01-incubating
>>> mavenVersion=2.3.27-incubating-SNAPSHOT # <-- no change here
>>> versionForOSGi=2.3.27.rc01-incubating
>>> versionForMf=2.3.26.99
>>
>> Yes, but to non-RC now.
>>
>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>
>>> Woonsan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 5:06 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Monday, October 2, 2017, 5:39:40 AM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Saturday, September 30, 2017, 3:39:24 AM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Monday, September 25, 2017, 7:23:14 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd like to volunteer for that.
>>>>>>>>> Assuming there's a voting process, I guess the release process will
>>>>>>>>> happen next week or afterward, right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The actual release yes, but the duty of the Release Manager is to take
>>>>>>>> care of the whole process. That's starting with checking if the thing
>>>>>>>> is ready and publishing it internally for a preview, then achieving
>>>>>>>> community consensus (which for us means a voting on dev@freemarker,
>>>>>>>> and if that passes then another voting on general@incubator), then
>>>>>>>> actually pushing the distribution. But
>>>>>>>> http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases describes
>>>>>>>> all these steps. (There are also official resources like
>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/#releases and
>>>>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html, but the
>>>>>>>> point of the how-to is that you don't have to read them.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As you will note if you read the above, you will need a PGP signature
>>>>>>>> and certain rights to commit into some repos and to do things on
>>>>>>>> Nexus. So you will have to start with requesting those rights.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've added mine to KEYS files in
>>>>>>> dist.apache.org/repos/dist/{dev,release}/incubator/freemarker/.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not a PGP expert at all, so I really don't know if these have any
>>>>>> practical implications, but two things that I'm not sure about:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Wouldn't it be better to stick to only one of the two public keys?
>>>>>
>>>>> I've reverted the previous addition and added the latest one only again:
>>>>> - https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/freemarker/KEYS
>>>>> - https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/freemarker/KEYS
>>>>
>>>> OK
>>>>
>>>>>> - The pub header in KEYS looks kind of unusual. It used to be like
>>>>>> "pub 4096R/82667DC1 2014-07-17", where the 82667DC1 is used on
>>>>>> several places to refer to the public key, like in sig-s and all.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know. I used the same command as shown in KEYS file:
>>>>> (gpg --list-sigs 04...CE && gpg --armor --export 04...CE) >> KEYS
>>>>
>>>> Then I will assume then it's fine until somebody complains... It's not
>>>> a blocker in an case, since KEYS is not part of the release.
>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone know the differences?
>>>>
>>>>>> Last not least, someone from the ASF who knows you in person should
>>>>>> sign the key that you release with. The Ring of Trust thing, you
>>>>>> know... (I guess it's good enough if I do it, when the above key
>>>>>> question is settled.)
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure if it is required. In my experiences, it is good enough
>>>>> to register your public key in one of the most popular key server as
>>>>> the Nexus checks it from it, like Apache releases are usually
>>>>> verified. [1]
>>>>> -
>>>>> http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=Woonsan+Ko&op=index&fingerprint=on
>>>>
>>>> I'm not aware of a formal requirement either, but maybe some on
>>>> general@incubator won't like it. Anyway, it doesn't block the release
>>>> process, as it can be signed any time later (as it doesn't affect your
>>>> key pair, it doesn't affect the signed artifact... I think).
>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Woonsan
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://www.apache.org/info/verification.html#CheckingSignatures
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And, I was able to log on the Nexus and browse repository and staging
>>>>>>> repository.
>>>>>>> The next is to follow "The steps of making a release" section?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm just investigating some backward compatibility issue, but
>>>>>> otherwise yes. (I have updated it a bit BTW.) Are you using some kind
>>>>>> of instant messaging or chat room or such? E-mail will be too slow I
>>>>>> think. (Screen sharing and voice can come handy as well sometimes. If
>>>>>> you happen to use Skype, I'm there.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Woonsan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm asking this because my laptop got broken before the last week
>>>>>>>>> and I'm waiting for a new laptop to be delivered this week. If it is
>>>>>>>>> next week or afterward, I'll be prepared properly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If in the light of the above you are still willing to do this, I will
>>>>>>>> wait.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Woonsan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Could somebody with commit rights volunteer for this? We have a
>>>>>>>>>> step-to-step guide
>>>>>>>>>> (http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases), and I
>>>>>>>>>> would be present to help with this (through Skype or whatever you
>>>>>>>>>> prefer). I want to see (and demonstrate) that in case I'm gone someone
>>>>>>>>>> else can do a release.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Daniel Dekany
>>
>
--
Thanks,
Daniel Dekany
Re: Release manager wanted for 2.3.27
Posted by Woonsan Ko <wo...@apache.org>.
Hi Daniel,
I've passed along to the step #9
(https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/freemarker/engine/2.3.27-incubating/),
except of GAE release artifacts. What is the ant command to build GAE
release artifacts?
Also, here's the result of JAPICC:
Preparing, please wait ...
WARNING: set #1 version number to 2.3.26 (use --v1=NUM option to change it)
Using Java 1.8.0_144
Reading classes 2.3.26 ...
WARNING: set #2 version number to 2.3.27 (use --v2=NUM option to change it)
Reading classes 2.3.27 ...
Comparing classes ...
Creating compatibility report ...
Binary compatibility: 99.9%
Source compatibility: 99.9%
Total binary compatibility problems: 1, warnings: 0
Total source compatibility problems: 1, warnings: 0
Report: compat_reports/FreeMarker/2.3.26_to_2.3.27/compat_report.html
The 'problem' in the html report is as follows:
"Type of field EMPTY_HASH has been changed from
freemarker.template.TemplateHashModelEx to
freemarker.template.TemplateHashModelEx2."
It seems like a false alarm since I cannot find EMPTY_HASH field in
each file and in each version.
Regards,
Woonsan
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Monday, October 2, 2017, 5:19:11 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> I have two questions regarding the release steps.
>>
>> 1. Are we supposed to release an RC version ("rc01") now?
>
> I say, no, the changes weren't significant enough, we go for 2.3.27
> straight. But it will be important (as always, actually...) to check
> the binary API compatibility report carefully.
>
> Also, it will be important that others (like OFBiz and Moqui devs) try
> their real world application with the new version artifacts.
>
>> 2. In version.properties of 2.3 branch, do we need to update these only?
>>
>> version=2.3.27-rc01-incubating
>> mavenVersion=2.3.27-incubating-SNAPSHOT # <-- no change here
>> versionForOSGi=2.3.27.rc01-incubating
>> versionForMf=2.3.26.99
>
> Yes, but to non-RC now.
>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Woonsan
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 5:06 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Monday, October 2, 2017, 5:39:40 AM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> Saturday, September 30, 2017, 3:39:24 AM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Monday, September 25, 2017, 7:23:14 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd like to volunteer for that.
>>>>>>>> Assuming there's a voting process, I guess the release process will
>>>>>>>> happen next week or afterward, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The actual release yes, but the duty of the Release Manager is to take
>>>>>>> care of the whole process. That's starting with checking if the thing
>>>>>>> is ready and publishing it internally for a preview, then achieving
>>>>>>> community consensus (which for us means a voting on dev@freemarker,
>>>>>>> and if that passes then another voting on general@incubator), then
>>>>>>> actually pushing the distribution. But
>>>>>>> http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases describes
>>>>>>> all these steps. (There are also official resources like
>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/#releases and
>>>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html, but the
>>>>>>> point of the how-to is that you don't have to read them.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As you will note if you read the above, you will need a PGP signature
>>>>>>> and certain rights to commit into some repos and to do things on
>>>>>>> Nexus. So you will have to start with requesting those rights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've added mine to KEYS files in
>>>>>> dist.apache.org/repos/dist/{dev,release}/incubator/freemarker/.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not a PGP expert at all, so I really don't know if these have any
>>>>> practical implications, but two things that I'm not sure about:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Wouldn't it be better to stick to only one of the two public keys?
>>>>
>>>> I've reverted the previous addition and added the latest one only again:
>>>> - https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/freemarker/KEYS
>>>> - https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/freemarker/KEYS
>>>
>>> OK
>>>
>>>>> - The pub header in KEYS looks kind of unusual. It used to be like
>>>>> "pub 4096R/82667DC1 2014-07-17", where the 82667DC1 is used on
>>>>> several places to refer to the public key, like in sig-s and all.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know. I used the same command as shown in KEYS file:
>>>> (gpg --list-sigs 04...CE && gpg --armor --export 04...CE) >> KEYS
>>>
>>> Then I will assume then it's fine until somebody complains... It's not
>>> a blocker in an case, since KEYS is not part of the release.
>>>
>>>> Does anyone know the differences?
>>>
>>>>> Last not least, someone from the ASF who knows you in person should
>>>>> sign the key that you release with. The Ring of Trust thing, you
>>>>> know... (I guess it's good enough if I do it, when the above key
>>>>> question is settled.)
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure if it is required. In my experiences, it is good enough
>>>> to register your public key in one of the most popular key server as
>>>> the Nexus checks it from it, like Apache releases are usually
>>>> verified. [1]
>>>> -
>>>> http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=Woonsan+Ko&op=index&fingerprint=on
>>>
>>> I'm not aware of a formal requirement either, but maybe some on
>>> general@incubator won't like it. Anyway, it doesn't block the release
>>> process, as it can be signed any time later (as it doesn't affect your
>>> key pair, it doesn't affect the signed artifact... I think).
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Woonsan
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://www.apache.org/info/verification.html#CheckingSignatures
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And, I was able to log on the Nexus and browse repository and staging
>>>>>> repository.
>>>>>> The next is to follow "The steps of making a release" section?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm just investigating some backward compatibility issue, but
>>>>> otherwise yes. (I have updated it a bit BTW.) Are you using some kind
>>>>> of instant messaging or chat room or such? E-mail will be too slow I
>>>>> think. (Screen sharing and voice can come handy as well sometimes. If
>>>>> you happen to use Skype, I'm there.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Woonsan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm asking this because my laptop got broken before the last week
>>>>>>>> and I'm waiting for a new laptop to be delivered this week. If it is
>>>>>>>> next week or afterward, I'll be prepared properly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If in the light of the above you are still willing to do this, I will
>>>>>>> wait.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Woonsan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Could somebody with commit rights volunteer for this? We have a
>>>>>>>>> step-to-step guide
>>>>>>>>> (http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases), and I
>>>>>>>>> would be present to help with this (through Skype or whatever you
>>>>>>>>> prefer). I want to see (and demonstrate) that in case I'm gone someone
>>>>>>>>> else can do a release.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks,
>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Daniel Dekany
>
Re: Release manager wanted for 2.3.27
Posted by Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org>.
Monday, October 2, 2017, 5:19:11 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> I have two questions regarding the release steps.
>
> 1. Are we supposed to release an RC version ("rc01") now?
I say, no, the changes weren't significant enough, we go for 2.3.27
straight. But it will be important (as always, actually...) to check
the binary API compatibility report carefully.
Also, it will be important that others (like OFBiz and Moqui devs) try
their real world application with the new version artifacts.
> 2. In version.properties of 2.3 branch, do we need to update these only?
>
> version=2.3.27-rc01-incubating
> mavenVersion=2.3.27-incubating-SNAPSHOT # <-- no change here
> versionForOSGi=2.3.27.rc01-incubating
> versionForMf=2.3.26.99
Yes, but to non-RC now.
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Woonsan
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 5:06 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Monday, October 2, 2017, 5:39:40 AM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Saturday, September 30, 2017, 3:39:24 AM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Monday, September 25, 2017, 7:23:14 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd like to volunteer for that.
>>>>>>> Assuming there's a voting process, I guess the release process will
>>>>>>> happen next week or afterward, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The actual release yes, but the duty of the Release Manager is to take
>>>>>> care of the whole process. That's starting with checking if the thing
>>>>>> is ready and publishing it internally for a preview, then achieving
>>>>>> community consensus (which for us means a voting on dev@freemarker,
>>>>>> and if that passes then another voting on general@incubator), then
>>>>>> actually pushing the distribution. But
>>>>>> http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases describes
>>>>>> all these steps. (There are also official resources like
>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/#releases and
>>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html, but the
>>>>>> point of the how-to is that you don't have to read them.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you will note if you read the above, you will need a PGP signature
>>>>>> and certain rights to commit into some repos and to do things on
>>>>>> Nexus. So you will have to start with requesting those rights.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've added mine to KEYS files in
>>>>> dist.apache.org/repos/dist/{dev,release}/incubator/freemarker/.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not a PGP expert at all, so I really don't know if these have any
>>>> practical implications, but two things that I'm not sure about:
>>>>
>>>> - Wouldn't it be better to stick to only one of the two public keys?
>>>
>>> I've reverted the previous addition and added the latest one only again:
>>> - https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/freemarker/KEYS
>>> - https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/freemarker/KEYS
>>
>> OK
>>
>>>> - The pub header in KEYS looks kind of unusual. It used to be like
>>>> "pub 4096R/82667DC1 2014-07-17", where the 82667DC1 is used on
>>>> several places to refer to the public key, like in sig-s and all.
>>>
>>> I don't know. I used the same command as shown in KEYS file:
>>> (gpg --list-sigs 04...CE && gpg --armor --export 04...CE) >> KEYS
>>
>> Then I will assume then it's fine until somebody complains... It's not
>> a blocker in an case, since KEYS is not part of the release.
>>
>>> Does anyone know the differences?
>>
>>>> Last not least, someone from the ASF who knows you in person should
>>>> sign the key that you release with. The Ring of Trust thing, you
>>>> know... (I guess it's good enough if I do it, when the above key
>>>> question is settled.)
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if it is required. In my experiences, it is good enough
>>> to register your public key in one of the most popular key server as
>>> the Nexus checks it from it, like Apache releases are usually
>>> verified. [1]
>>> -
>>> http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=Woonsan+Ko&op=index&fingerprint=on
>>
>> I'm not aware of a formal requirement either, but maybe some on
>> general@incubator won't like it. Anyway, it doesn't block the release
>> process, as it can be signed any time later (as it doesn't affect your
>> key pair, it doesn't affect the signed artifact... I think).
>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Woonsan
>>>
>>> [1] https://www.apache.org/info/verification.html#CheckingSignatures
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And, I was able to log on the Nexus and browse repository and staging
>>>>> repository.
>>>>> The next is to follow "The steps of making a release" section?
>>>>
>>>> I'm just investigating some backward compatibility issue, but
>>>> otherwise yes. (I have updated it a bit BTW.) Are you using some kind
>>>> of instant messaging or chat room or such? E-mail will be too slow I
>>>> think. (Screen sharing and voice can come handy as well sometimes. If
>>>> you happen to use Skype, I'm there.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Woonsan
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm asking this because my laptop got broken before the last week
>>>>>>> and I'm waiting for a new laptop to be delivered this week. If it is
>>>>>>> next week or afterward, I'll be prepared properly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If in the light of the above you are still willing to do this, I will
>>>>>> wait.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Woonsan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Could somebody with commit rights volunteer for this? We have a
>>>>>>>> step-to-step guide
>>>>>>>> (http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases), and I
>>>>>>>> would be present to help with this (through Skype or whatever you
>>>>>>>> prefer). I want to see (and demonstrate) that in case I'm gone someone
>>>>>>>> else can do a release.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Daniel Dekany
>>
>
--
Thanks,
Daniel Dekany
Re: Release manager wanted for 2.3.27
Posted by Woonsan Ko <wo...@apache.org>.
Hi Daniel,
I have two questions regarding the release steps.
1. Are we supposed to release an RC version ("rc01") now?
2. In version.properties of 2.3 branch, do we need to update these only?
version=2.3.27-rc01-incubating
mavenVersion=2.3.27-incubating-SNAPSHOT # <-- no change here
versionForOSGi=2.3.27.rc01-incubating
versionForMf=2.3.26.99
Thanks in advance,
Woonsan
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 5:06 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Monday, October 2, 2017, 5:39:40 AM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Saturday, September 30, 2017, 3:39:24 AM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> Monday, September 25, 2017, 7:23:14 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like to volunteer for that.
>>>>>> Assuming there's a voting process, I guess the release process will
>>>>>> happen next week or afterward, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> The actual release yes, but the duty of the Release Manager is to take
>>>>> care of the whole process. That's starting with checking if the thing
>>>>> is ready and publishing it internally for a preview, then achieving
>>>>> community consensus (which for us means a voting on dev@freemarker,
>>>>> and if that passes then another voting on general@incubator), then
>>>>> actually pushing the distribution. But
>>>>> http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases describes
>>>>> all these steps. (There are also official resources like
>>>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/#releases and
>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html, but the
>>>>> point of the how-to is that you don't have to read them.)
>>>>>
>>>>> As you will note if you read the above, you will need a PGP signature
>>>>> and certain rights to commit into some repos and to do things on
>>>>> Nexus. So you will have to start with requesting those rights.
>>>>
>>>> I've added mine to KEYS files in
>>>> dist.apache.org/repos/dist/{dev,release}/incubator/freemarker/.
>>>
>>> I'm not a PGP expert at all, so I really don't know if these have any
>>> practical implications, but two things that I'm not sure about:
>>>
>>> - Wouldn't it be better to stick to only one of the two public keys?
>>
>> I've reverted the previous addition and added the latest one only again:
>> - https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/freemarker/KEYS
>> - https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/freemarker/KEYS
>
> OK
>
>>> - The pub header in KEYS looks kind of unusual. It used to be like
>>> "pub 4096R/82667DC1 2014-07-17", where the 82667DC1 is used on
>>> several places to refer to the public key, like in sig-s and all.
>>
>> I don't know. I used the same command as shown in KEYS file:
>> (gpg --list-sigs 04...CE && gpg --armor --export 04...CE) >> KEYS
>
> Then I will assume then it's fine until somebody complains... It's not
> a blocker in an case, since KEYS is not part of the release.
>
>> Does anyone know the differences?
>
>>> Last not least, someone from the ASF who knows you in person should
>>> sign the key that you release with. The Ring of Trust thing, you
>>> know... (I guess it's good enough if I do it, when the above key
>>> question is settled.)
>>
>> I'm not sure if it is required. In my experiences, it is good enough
>> to register your public key in one of the most popular key server as
>> the Nexus checks it from it, like Apache releases are usually
>> verified. [1]
>> -
>> http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=Woonsan+Ko&op=index&fingerprint=on
>
> I'm not aware of a formal requirement either, but maybe some on
> general@incubator won't like it. Anyway, it doesn't block the release
> process, as it can be signed any time later (as it doesn't affect your
> key pair, it doesn't affect the signed artifact... I think).
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Woonsan
>>
>> [1] https://www.apache.org/info/verification.html#CheckingSignatures
>>
>>>
>>>> And, I was able to log on the Nexus and browse repository and staging
>>>> repository.
>>>> The next is to follow "The steps of making a release" section?
>>>
>>> I'm just investigating some backward compatibility issue, but
>>> otherwise yes. (I have updated it a bit BTW.) Are you using some kind
>>> of instant messaging or chat room or such? E-mail will be too slow I
>>> think. (Screen sharing and voice can come handy as well sometimes. If
>>> you happen to use Skype, I'm there.)
>>>
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Woonsan
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm asking this because my laptop got broken before the last week
>>>>>> and I'm waiting for a new laptop to be delivered this week. If it is
>>>>>> next week or afterward, I'll be prepared properly.
>>>>>
>>>>> If in the light of the above you are still willing to do this, I will
>>>>> wait.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Woonsan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu> wrote:
>>>>>>> Could somebody with commit rights volunteer for this? We have a
>>>>>>> step-to-step guide
>>>>>>> (http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases), and I
>>>>>>> would be present to help with this (through Skype or whatever you
>>>>>>> prefer). I want to see (and demonstrate) that in case I'm gone someone
>>>>>>> else can do a release.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks a lot!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks,
>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Daniel Dekany
>
Re: Release manager wanted for 2.3.27
Posted by Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org>.
Monday, October 2, 2017, 5:39:40 AM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Saturday, September 30, 2017, 3:39:24 AM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Monday, September 25, 2017, 7:23:14 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to volunteer for that.
>>>>> Assuming there's a voting process, I guess the release process will
>>>>> happen next week or afterward, right?
>>>>
>>>> The actual release yes, but the duty of the Release Manager is to take
>>>> care of the whole process. That's starting with checking if the thing
>>>> is ready and publishing it internally for a preview, then achieving
>>>> community consensus (which for us means a voting on dev@freemarker,
>>>> and if that passes then another voting on general@incubator), then
>>>> actually pushing the distribution. But
>>>> http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases describes
>>>> all these steps. (There are also official resources like
>>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/#releases and
>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html, but the
>>>> point of the how-to is that you don't have to read them.)
>>>>
>>>> As you will note if you read the above, you will need a PGP signature
>>>> and certain rights to commit into some repos and to do things on
>>>> Nexus. So you will have to start with requesting those rights.
>>>
>>> I've added mine to KEYS files in
>>> dist.apache.org/repos/dist/{dev,release}/incubator/freemarker/.
>>
>> I'm not a PGP expert at all, so I really don't know if these have any
>> practical implications, but two things that I'm not sure about:
>>
>> - Wouldn't it be better to stick to only one of the two public keys?
>
> I've reverted the previous addition and added the latest one only again:
> - https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/freemarker/KEYS
> - https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/freemarker/KEYS
OK
>> - The pub header in KEYS looks kind of unusual. It used to be like
>> "pub 4096R/82667DC1 2014-07-17", where the 82667DC1 is used on
>> several places to refer to the public key, like in sig-s and all.
>
> I don't know. I used the same command as shown in KEYS file:
> (gpg --list-sigs 04...CE && gpg --armor --export 04...CE) >> KEYS
Then I will assume then it's fine until somebody complains... It's not
a blocker in an case, since KEYS is not part of the release.
> Does anyone know the differences?
>> Last not least, someone from the ASF who knows you in person should
>> sign the key that you release with. The Ring of Trust thing, you
>> know... (I guess it's good enough if I do it, when the above key
>> question is settled.)
>
> I'm not sure if it is required. In my experiences, it is good enough
> to register your public key in one of the most popular key server as
> the Nexus checks it from it, like Apache releases are usually
> verified. [1]
> -
> http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=Woonsan+Ko&op=index&fingerprint=on
I'm not aware of a formal requirement either, but maybe some on
general@incubator won't like it. Anyway, it doesn't block the release
process, as it can be signed any time later (as it doesn't affect your
key pair, it doesn't affect the signed artifact... I think).
> Regards,
>
> Woonsan
>
> [1] https://www.apache.org/info/verification.html#CheckingSignatures
>
>>
>>> And, I was able to log on the Nexus and browse repository and staging
>>> repository.
>>> The next is to follow "The steps of making a release" section?
>>
>> I'm just investigating some backward compatibility issue, but
>> otherwise yes. (I have updated it a bit BTW.) Are you using some kind
>> of instant messaging or chat room or such? E-mail will be too slow I
>> think. (Screen sharing and voice can come handy as well sometimes. If
>> you happen to use Skype, I'm there.)
>>
>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Woonsan
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I'm asking this because my laptop got broken before the last week
>>>>> and I'm waiting for a new laptop to be delivered this week. If it is
>>>>> next week or afterward, I'll be prepared properly.
>>>>
>>>> If in the light of the above you are still willing to do this, I will
>>>> wait.
>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Woonsan
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu> wrote:
>>>>>> Could somebody with commit rights volunteer for this? We have a
>>>>>> step-to-step guide
>>>>>> (http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases), and I
>>>>>> would be present to help with this (through Skype or whatever you
>>>>>> prefer). I want to see (and demonstrate) that in case I'm gone someone
>>>>>> else can do a release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks a lot!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Daniel Dekany
>>
>
--
Thanks,
Daniel Dekany
Re: Release manager wanted for 2.3.27
Posted by Woonsan Ko <wo...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Saturday, September 30, 2017, 3:39:24 AM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Monday, September 25, 2017, 7:23:14 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd like to volunteer for that.
>>>> Assuming there's a voting process, I guess the release process will
>>>> happen next week or afterward, right?
>>>
>>> The actual release yes, but the duty of the Release Manager is to take
>>> care of the whole process. That's starting with checking if the thing
>>> is ready and publishing it internally for a preview, then achieving
>>> community consensus (which for us means a voting on dev@freemarker,
>>> and if that passes then another voting on general@incubator), then
>>> actually pushing the distribution. But
>>> http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases describes
>>> all these steps. (There are also official resources like
>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/#releases and
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html, but the
>>> point of the how-to is that you don't have to read them.)
>>>
>>> As you will note if you read the above, you will need a PGP signature
>>> and certain rights to commit into some repos and to do things on
>>> Nexus. So you will have to start with requesting those rights.
>>
>> I've added mine to KEYS files in
>> dist.apache.org/repos/dist/{dev,release}/incubator/freemarker/.
>
> I'm not a PGP expert at all, so I really don't know if these have any
> practical implications, but two things that I'm not sure about:
>
> - Wouldn't it be better to stick to only one of the two public keys?
I've reverted the previous addition and added the latest one only again:
- https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/freemarker/KEYS
- https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/freemarker/KEYS
>
> - The pub header in KEYS looks kind of unusual. It used to be like
> "pub 4096R/82667DC1 2014-07-17", where the 82667DC1 is used on
> several places to refer to the public key, like in sig-s and all.
I don't know. I used the same command as shown in KEYS file:
(gpg --list-sigs 04...CE && gpg --armor --export 04...CE) >> KEYS
Does anyone know the differences?
>
> Last not least, someone from the ASF who knows you in person should
> sign the key that you release with. The Ring of Trust thing, you
> know... (I guess it's good enough if I do it, when the above key
> question is settled.)
I'm not sure if it is required. In my experiences, it is good enough
to register your public key in one of the most popular key server as
the Nexus checks it from it, like Apache releases are usually
verified. [1]
- http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=Woonsan+Ko&op=index&fingerprint=on
Regards,
Woonsan
[1] https://www.apache.org/info/verification.html#CheckingSignatures
>
>> And, I was able to log on the Nexus and browse repository and staging
>> repository.
>> The next is to follow "The steps of making a release" section?
>
> I'm just investigating some backward compatibility issue, but
> otherwise yes. (I have updated it a bit BTW.) Are you using some kind
> of instant messaging or chat room or such? E-mail will be too slow I
> think. (Screen sharing and voice can come handy as well sometimes. If
> you happen to use Skype, I'm there.)
>
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Woonsan
>>
>>>
>>>> I'm asking this because my laptop got broken before the last week
>>>> and I'm waiting for a new laptop to be delivered this week. If it is
>>>> next week or afterward, I'll be prepared properly.
>>>
>>> If in the light of the above you are still willing to do this, I will
>>> wait.
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Woonsan
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu> wrote:
>>>>> Could somebody with commit rights volunteer for this? We have a
>>>>> step-to-step guide
>>>>> (http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases), and I
>>>>> would be present to help with this (through Skype or whatever you
>>>>> prefer). I want to see (and demonstrate) that in case I'm gone someone
>>>>> else can do a release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks a lot!
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks,
>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Daniel Dekany
>
Re: Release manager wanted for 2.3.27
Posted by Woonsan Ko <wo...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 6:57 AM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Saturday, September 30, 2017, 12:28:39 PM, Daniel Dekany wrote:
>
>> Saturday, September 30, 2017, 3:39:24 AM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Monday, September 25, 2017, 7:23:14 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to volunteer for that.
>>>>> Assuming there's a voting process, I guess the release process will
>>>>> happen next week or afterward, right?
>>>>
>>>> The actual release yes, but the duty of the Release Manager is to take
>>>> care of the whole process. That's starting with checking if the thing
>>>> is ready and publishing it internally for a preview, then achieving
>>>> community consensus (which for us means a voting on dev@freemarker,
>>>> and if that passes then another voting on general@incubator), then
>>>> actually pushing the distribution. But
>>>> http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases describes
>>>> all these steps. (There are also official resources like
>>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/#releases and
>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html, but the
>>>> point of the how-to is that you don't have to read them.)
>>>>
>>>> As you will note if you read the above, you will need a PGP signature
>>>> and certain rights to commit into some repos and to do things on
>>>> Nexus. So you will have to start with requesting those rights.
>>>
>>> I've added mine to KEYS files in
>>> dist.apache.org/repos/dist/{dev,release}/incubator/freemarker/.
>>
>> I'm not a PGP expert at all, so I really don't know if these have any
>> practical implications, but two things that I'm not sure about:
>>
>> - Wouldn't it be better to stick to only one of the two public keys?
>>
>> - The pub header in KEYS looks kind of unusual. It used to be like
>> "pub 4096R/82667DC1 2014-07-17", where the 82667DC1 is used on
>> several places to refer to the public key, like in sig-s and all.
>>
>> Last not least, someone from the ASF who knows you in person should
>> sign the key that you release with. The Ring of Trust thing, you
>> know... (I guess it's good enough if I do it, when the above key
>> question is settled.)
>>
>>> And, I was able to log on the Nexus and browse repository and staging
>>> repository.
>>> The next is to follow "The steps of making a release" section?
>>
>> I'm just investigating some backward compatibility issue,
>
> Fixed it.
>
> BTW, before starting the vote, let me look at the upload/staged thing.
> Just in case... it's less "paper work" to fix any oversight then.
Certainly! :-)
Regards,
Woonsan
>
>> but otherwise yes. (I have updated it a bit BTW.) Are you using some
>> kind of instant messaging or chat room or such? E-mail will be too
>> slow I think. (Screen sharing and voice can come handy as well
>> sometimes. If you happen to use Skype, I'm there.)
>>
>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Woonsan
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I'm asking this because my laptop got broken before the last week
>>>>> and I'm waiting for a new laptop to be delivered this week. If it is
>>>>> next week or afterward, I'll be prepared properly.
>>>>
>>>> If in the light of the above you are still willing to do this, I will
>>>> wait.
>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Woonsan
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu> wrote:
>>>>>> Could somebody with commit rights volunteer for this? We have a
>>>>>> step-to-step guide
>>>>>> (http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases), and I
>>>>>> would be present to help with this (through Skype or whatever you
>>>>>> prefer). I want to see (and demonstrate) that in case I'm gone someone
>>>>>> else can do a release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks a lot!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Daniel Dekany
>
Re: Release manager wanted for 2.3.27
Posted by Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org>.
Saturday, September 30, 2017, 12:28:39 PM, Daniel Dekany wrote:
> Saturday, September 30, 2017, 3:39:24 AM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Monday, September 25, 2017, 7:23:14 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd like to volunteer for that.
>>>> Assuming there's a voting process, I guess the release process will
>>>> happen next week or afterward, right?
>>>
>>> The actual release yes, but the duty of the Release Manager is to take
>>> care of the whole process. That's starting with checking if the thing
>>> is ready and publishing it internally for a preview, then achieving
>>> community consensus (which for us means a voting on dev@freemarker,
>>> and if that passes then another voting on general@incubator), then
>>> actually pushing the distribution. But
>>> http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases describes
>>> all these steps. (There are also official resources like
>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/#releases and
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html, but the
>>> point of the how-to is that you don't have to read them.)
>>>
>>> As you will note if you read the above, you will need a PGP signature
>>> and certain rights to commit into some repos and to do things on
>>> Nexus. So you will have to start with requesting those rights.
>>
>> I've added mine to KEYS files in
>> dist.apache.org/repos/dist/{dev,release}/incubator/freemarker/.
>
> I'm not a PGP expert at all, so I really don't know if these have any
> practical implications, but two things that I'm not sure about:
>
> - Wouldn't it be better to stick to only one of the two public keys?
>
> - The pub header in KEYS looks kind of unusual. It used to be like
> "pub 4096R/82667DC1 2014-07-17", where the 82667DC1 is used on
> several places to refer to the public key, like in sig-s and all.
>
> Last not least, someone from the ASF who knows you in person should
> sign the key that you release with. The Ring of Trust thing, you
> know... (I guess it's good enough if I do it, when the above key
> question is settled.)
>
>> And, I was able to log on the Nexus and browse repository and staging
>> repository.
>> The next is to follow "The steps of making a release" section?
>
> I'm just investigating some backward compatibility issue,
Fixed it.
BTW, before starting the vote, let me look at the upload/staged thing.
Just in case... it's less "paper work" to fix any oversight then.
> but otherwise yes. (I have updated it a bit BTW.) Are you using some
> kind of instant messaging or chat room or such? E-mail will be too
> slow I think. (Screen sharing and voice can come handy as well
> sometimes. If you happen to use Skype, I'm there.)
>
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Woonsan
>>
>>>
>>>> I'm asking this because my laptop got broken before the last week
>>>> and I'm waiting for a new laptop to be delivered this week. If it is
>>>> next week or afterward, I'll be prepared properly.
>>>
>>> If in the light of the above you are still willing to do this, I will
>>> wait.
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Woonsan
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu> wrote:
>>>>> Could somebody with commit rights volunteer for this? We have a
>>>>> step-to-step guide
>>>>> (http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases), and I
>>>>> would be present to help with this (through Skype or whatever you
>>>>> prefer). I want to see (and demonstrate) that in case I'm gone someone
>>>>> else can do a release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks a lot!
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks,
>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>
>>
>
--
Thanks,
Daniel Dekany
Re: Release manager wanted for 2.3.27
Posted by Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org>.
Saturday, September 30, 2017, 3:39:24 AM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Monday, September 25, 2017, 7:23:14 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to volunteer for that.
>>> Assuming there's a voting process, I guess the release process will
>>> happen next week or afterward, right?
>>
>> The actual release yes, but the duty of the Release Manager is to take
>> care of the whole process. That's starting with checking if the thing
>> is ready and publishing it internally for a preview, then achieving
>> community consensus (which for us means a voting on dev@freemarker,
>> and if that passes then another voting on general@incubator), then
>> actually pushing the distribution. But
>> http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases describes
>> all these steps. (There are also official resources like
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/#releases and
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html, but the
>> point of the how-to is that you don't have to read them.)
>>
>> As you will note if you read the above, you will need a PGP signature
>> and certain rights to commit into some repos and to do things on
>> Nexus. So you will have to start with requesting those rights.
>
> I've added mine to KEYS files in
> dist.apache.org/repos/dist/{dev,release}/incubator/freemarker/.
I'm not a PGP expert at all, so I really don't know if these have any
practical implications, but two things that I'm not sure about:
- Wouldn't it be better to stick to only one of the two public keys?
- The pub header in KEYS looks kind of unusual. It used to be like
"pub 4096R/82667DC1 2014-07-17", where the 82667DC1 is used on
several places to refer to the public key, like in sig-s and all.
Last not least, someone from the ASF who knows you in person should
sign the key that you release with. The Ring of Trust thing, you
know... (I guess it's good enough if I do it, when the above key
question is settled.)
> And, I was able to log on the Nexus and browse repository and staging
> repository.
> The next is to follow "The steps of making a release" section?
I'm just investigating some backward compatibility issue, but
otherwise yes. (I have updated it a bit BTW.) Are you using some kind
of instant messaging or chat room or such? E-mail will be too slow I
think. (Screen sharing and voice can come handy as well sometimes. If
you happen to use Skype, I'm there.)
> Regards,
>
> Woonsan
>
>>
>>> I'm asking this because my laptop got broken before the last week
>>> and I'm waiting for a new laptop to be delivered this week. If it is
>>> next week or afterward, I'll be prepared properly.
>>
>> If in the light of the above you are still willing to do this, I will
>> wait.
>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Woonsan
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu> wrote:
>>>> Could somebody with commit rights volunteer for this? We have a
>>>> step-to-step guide
>>>> (http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases), and I
>>>> would be present to help with this (through Skype or whatever you
>>>> prefer). I want to see (and demonstrate) that in case I'm gone someone
>>>> else can do a release.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks a lot!
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Daniel Dekany
>>
>
--
Thanks,
Daniel Dekany
Re: Release manager wanted for 2.3.27
Posted by Woonsan Ko <wo...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Monday, September 25, 2017, 7:23:14 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>
>> I'd like to volunteer for that.
>> Assuming there's a voting process, I guess the release process will
>> happen next week or afterward, right?
>
> The actual release yes, but the duty of the Release Manager is to take
> care of the whole process. That's starting with checking if the thing
> is ready and publishing it internally for a preview, then achieving
> community consensus (which for us means a voting on dev@freemarker,
> and if that passes then another voting on general@incubator), then
> actually pushing the distribution. But
> http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases describes
> all these steps. (There are also official resources like
> http://www.apache.org/dev/#releases and
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html, but the
> point of the how-to is that you don't have to read them.)
>
> As you will note if you read the above, you will need a PGP signature
> and certain rights to commit into some repos and to do things on
> Nexus. So you will have to start with requesting those rights.
I've added mine to KEYS files in
dist.apache.org/repos/dist/{dev,release}/incubator/freemarker/.
And, I was able to log on the Nexus and browse repository and staging
repository.
The next is to follow "The steps of making a release" section?
Regards,
Woonsan
>
>> I'm asking this because my laptop got broken before the last week
>> and I'm waiting for a new laptop to be delivered this week. If it is
>> next week or afterward, I'll be prepared properly.
>
> If in the light of the above you are still willing to do this, I will
> wait.
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Woonsan
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu> wrote:
>>> Could somebody with commit rights volunteer for this? We have a
>>> step-to-step guide
>>> (http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases), and I
>>> would be present to help with this (through Skype or whatever you
>>> prefer). I want to see (and demonstrate) that in case I'm gone someone
>>> else can do a release.
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Daniel Dekany
>
Re: Release manager wanted for 2.3.27
Posted by Woonsan Ko <wo...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Monday, September 25, 2017, 7:23:14 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>
>> I'd like to volunteer for that.
>> Assuming there's a voting process, I guess the release process will
>> happen next week or afterward, right?
>
> The actual release yes, but the duty of the Release Manager is to take
> care of the whole process. That's starting with checking if the thing
> is ready and publishing it internally for a preview, then achieving
> community consensus (which for us means a voting on dev@freemarker,
> and if that passes then another voting on general@incubator), then
> actually pushing the distribution. But
> http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases describes
> all these steps. (There are also official resources like
> http://www.apache.org/dev/#releases and
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html, but the
> point of the how-to is that you don't have to read them.)
I see. Thanks for the information!
>
> As you will note if you read the above, you will need a PGP signature
> and certain rights to commit into some repos and to do things on
> Nexus. So you will have to start with requesting those rights.
I have backups for my PGP signature I used it for an Apache project
release before. So, I can probably save time for that.
I'll check with both dist svn rep and nexus for this project soon.
>
>> I'm asking this because my laptop got broken before the last week
>> and I'm waiting for a new laptop to be delivered this week. If it is
>> next week or afterward, I'll be prepared properly.
>
> If in the light of the above you are still willing to do this, I will
> wait.
I now have a better temporary laptop with a more familiar OS. So, I
think I can proceed the preparations this week.
Thanks,
Woonsan
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Woonsan
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu> wrote:
>>> Could somebody with commit rights volunteer for this? We have a
>>> step-to-step guide
>>> (http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases), and I
>>> would be present to help with this (through Skype or whatever you
>>> prefer). I want to see (and demonstrate) that in case I'm gone someone
>>> else can do a release.
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Daniel Dekany
>
Re: Release manager wanted for 2.3.27
Posted by Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org>.
Monday, September 25, 2017, 7:23:14 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
> I'd like to volunteer for that.
> Assuming there's a voting process, I guess the release process will
> happen next week or afterward, right?
The actual release yes, but the duty of the Release Manager is to take
care of the whole process. That's starting with checking if the thing
is ready and publishing it internally for a preview, then achieving
community consensus (which for us means a voting on dev@freemarker,
and if that passes then another voting on general@incubator), then
actually pushing the distribution. But
http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases describes
all these steps. (There are also official resources like
http://www.apache.org/dev/#releases and
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html, but the
point of the how-to is that you don't have to read them.)
As you will note if you read the above, you will need a PGP signature
and certain rights to commit into some repos and to do things on
Nexus. So you will have to start with requesting those rights.
> I'm asking this because my laptop got broken before the last week
> and I'm waiting for a new laptop to be delivered this week. If it is
> next week or afterward, I'll be prepared properly.
If in the light of the above you are still willing to do this, I will
wait.
> Regards,
>
> Woonsan
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu> wrote:
>> Could somebody with commit rights volunteer for this? We have a
>> step-to-step guide
>> (http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases), and I
>> would be present to help with this (through Skype or whatever you
>> prefer). I want to see (and demonstrate) that in case I'm gone someone
>> else can do a release.
>>
>> Thanks a lot!
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Daniel Dekany
>>
>
--
Thanks,
Daniel Dekany
Re: Release manager wanted for 2.3.27
Posted by Woonsan Ko <wo...@apache.org>.
I'd like to volunteer for that.
Assuming there's a voting process, I guess the release process will
happen next week or afterward, right? I'm asking this because my
laptop got broken before the last week and I'm waiting for a new
laptop to be delivered this week. If it is next week or afterward,
I'll be prepared properly.
Regards,
Woonsan
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu> wrote:
> Could somebody with commit rights volunteer for this? We have a
> step-to-step guide
> (http://freemarker.org/committer-howto.html#making-releases), and I
> would be present to help with this (through Skype or whatever you
> prefer). I want to see (and demonstrate) that in case I'm gone someone
> else can do a release.
>
> Thanks a lot!
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Daniel Dekany
>