On 16 August 2013 13:08, Fred Cooke <fred.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> They're deployed as a set, so what I want is the SHA1 or even MD5 of any
> one of the set of uploaded files, such that I can confirm that the set is
> the set that I am supposed to be looking at. I don't see importance in
> which, but I've not thought about it much. I think *all* would be huge
> overkill.
It's only really needed for source archives, which are the ones being
officially voted on.
This is something I've long thought is necessary to be able to tie the
vote mail to the artifacts.
And it could be very useful to have the hash in the mail archive.
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That sounds like you are looking for the SHA1 sum of the source bundle to
>> be included in the vote email. Which would seem perfectly reasonable to me.
Yes please!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 16 August 2013 12:31, Fred Cooke <fred.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Dennis, of course source bundles will contain URLs and hashes and
>> revisions
>> > and so forth, and the chance of those being mismatched is approximately
>> > zero. That's not the point.
>> >
>> > The point (for me, at least) is what did you INTEND to release, and does
>> > THAT match what is actually found in the bundle (including URLs and
>> hashes
>> > etc matching).
>> >
>> > Releasing is a fundamentally human process that consists of "is this
>> > ready?" and "pull trigger". Some binaries and bundles end up on server of
>> > some type somewhere. I want to know the checksum of one of the set of
>> items
>> > (so I KNOW (not guess) that I'm looking at what you want me to), and I
>> want
>> > to know what SCM or tarball+patchset you think you released it from. This
>> > is human information that can't be automated. The bundle someone goes and
>> > finds could have anything in it, and they won't know if it's what you
>> > wanted it to have in it, or not.
>> >
>> > Fred.
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:25 PM, Dennis Lundberg <denn...@apache.org
>> > >wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:24 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On 16 August 2013 09:32, Dennis Lundberg <denn...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:52 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> On 16 August 2013 08:10, Dennis Lundberg <denn...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 1:20 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >> On 15 August 2013 20:57, Dennis Lundberg <denn...@apache.org>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > >> >> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:27 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> On 15 August 2013 14:16, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io>
>> > wrote:
>> > > > >> >> >> > What Sebb is doing is perfectly reasonable.
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> > I agree. Checking that the source bundle is correct is good
>> > > release
>> > > > >> >> review
>> > > > >> >> > practice.
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> > Thank you!
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > He's trying to assert that everything in the source ball
>> > > > actually
>> > > > >> >> comes
>> > > > >> >> >> from source control and that no errant files have made their
>> > way
>> > > > into
>> > > > >> >> the
>> > > > >> >> >> distribution. Right now we cannot assert that the assembly
>> > > plugin
>> > > > has
>> > > > >> >> not
>> > > > >> >> >> wandered outside the checkout and pulled something else in,
>> or
>> > > > that
>> > > > >> >> someone
>> > > > >> >> >> didn't accidentally put something else in the distribution.
>> I
>> > > > think
>> > > > >> this
>> > > > >> >> >> unlikely but we can't assert otherwise right now which I
>> > believe
>> > > > is
>> > > > >> >> Sebb's
>> > > > >> >> >> point.
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> It *has* already happened several times that I am aware of.
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> The last few releases of the War plugin (various RMs &
>> voters)
>> > > > >> >> >> included at least one spurious file.
>> > > > >> >> >> So it was not just a one-off packaging - and review -
>> failure.
>> > > > >> >> >> [See separate thread(s) for all the details; they are not
>> > > germane
>> > > > >> here.]
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> The message is that mistakes happen even in automated
>> > processes.
>> > > > >> >> >> Which is why independent comparison of input and output is
>> > > > valuable.
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > If we can embed the revision from which the assembly was
>> > made
>> > > in
>> > > > >> the
>> > > > >> >> >> assembly itself (and maybe the build number plugin is doing
>> > this
>> > > > >> >> already),
>> > > > >> >> >> then a tool can be made to unpack the assembly, checkout the
>> > > > revision
>> > > > >> >> and
>> > > > >> >> >> assert that everything in the source distribution comes from
>> > > > source
>> > > > >> >> control.
>> > > > >> >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > If we can also assert that as part of each build all the
>> > > license
>> > > > >> files
>> > > > >> >> >> are intact and headers are in place then I believe we're
>> done
>> > > with
>> > > > >> >> >> provenance.
>> > > > >> >> >> > Licenses are present, all files have valid license
>> headers,
>> > > all
>> > > > >> files
>> > > > >> >> >> present in the source distribution come from source control,
>> > all
>> > > > >> >> >> contributions to source control are from bonafide CLA
>> carrying
>> > > > Apache
>> > > > >> >> >> committers because you don't get access to commit until the
>> > CLA
>> > > > is on
>> > > > >> >> file.
>> > > > >> >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > Sebb, reasonably accurate?
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> Yes.
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> One other point I made already is that I think the vote
>> e-mail
>> > > > needs
>> > > > >> >> >> to be transparent to all, not just those on the PMC.
>> > > > >> >> >> Links to the output from the release process are obviously
>> > > > already in
>> > > > >> >> >> the mail; what is missing is the input to the process, e.g..
>> > SCM
>> > > > >> >> >> coords.
>> > > > >> >> >> Yes, it may be possible to dig out the details from the
>> > archive,
>> > > > but
>> > > > >> >> >> that's not trivial.
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> > I disagree.
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> > If we focus first on a "normal" release, one that succeeds on
>> > the
>> > > > >> first
>> > > > >> >> > attempt, without a respin or deleting of tags.
>> > > > >> >> > To check provenance you would do this:
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> > 1. download the source bundle
>> > > > >> >> > 2. unpack the source bundle
>> > > > >> >> > 3. checkout the corresponding source code from the SCM
>> > > > >> >> > 4. compare the two trees
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> > Right so far?
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> > What you want, if I understand you correctly, is to have the
>> > SCM
>> > > > URL
>> > > > >> in
>> > > > >> >> the
>> > > > >> >> > vote email. So that you can give that to your SCM client in
>> > step
>> > > 3.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> Yes.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> > With the process we use here at the Maven project, the SCM
>> URL
>> > is
>> > > > in
>> > > > >> the
>> > > > >> >> > pom.xml file that sits in the root directory of the unpacked
>> > > source
>> > > > >> >> bundle.
>> > > > >> >> > All you need to do is open the file and copy the URL from
>> > there.
>> > > I
>> > > > >> still
>> > > > >> >> > fail to see how that is so much harder than to copy the URL
>> > from
>> > > an
>> > > > >> >> email.
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> > That is if you don't know the conventions that we use, by way
>> > of
>> > > > the
>> > > > >> >> > Release Plugin. The tag will always be in the format
>> > > > >> >> > ${project.artifactId}-${project.version}
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> My point is that it should be completely transparent, even to
>> > > outside
>> > > > >> >> reviewers.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > I guess that this is the point that we'll have to agree to
>> > disagree
>> > > > on.
>> > > > >> My
>> > > > >> > view is that if someone wants to to review a release from the
>> > Maven
>> > > > >> > project, they'd have to have a basic understanding of how Maven
>> > > works
>> > > > and
>> > > > >> > how we do releases in the Maven project. That includes what the
>> > > > Release
>> > > > >> > Plugin is and how it works.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Why does the release tool matter?
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > > > It is not the tool itself that matters, but rather what the tools
>> > does.
>> > > > > Since the Release plugin automates a lot of the tasks involved when
>> > > > doing a
>> > > > > release, it can appear to make things less transparent. Therefor a
>> > > > > knowledge about what it does is needed to make it transparent.
>> > > >
>> > > > That really is not the point.
>> > > >
>> > > > It's possible to create the same outputs from the same inputs using
>> > > > all sorts of methods, manual or automated.
>> > > >
>> > > > The fact that it is a Maven release should not matter as far as the
>> > > > source checking is concerned, except insofar as the staging area may
>> > > > be different.
>> > > >
>> > > > Only the source release archives matter.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > All of what you say above is true, but that is not what I'm talking
>> > about.
>> > > My focus is still on the 2.5 bullet in the process of *reviewing* a
>> > source
>> > > release, not it's creation.
>> > >
>> > > You want the SCM URL in the vote email. I'm arguing that that piece of
>> > > information is already available to you in the source bundle, so there
>> is
>> > > not point in including it in the vote email. Knowing *what* the Release
>> > > Plugin does makes you aware of this fact.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > It's still an ASF release.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Yes, and we must adhere to all the requirements of an ASF release.
>> > > There
>> > > > > are however a lot of different ways to make an ASF compliant
>> release.
>> > > > Each
>> > > > > PMC decides on a process for that, that works best for them.
>> > > >
>> > > > That's fine, the tool and process does not matter so long as the
>> > > > output is correct.
>> > > >
>> > > > > It should not matter how the source release artifacts are
>> generated.
>> > > > >> The process of checking them is still the same.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Of course if things go wrong, then it's important to know how the
>> > SCM
>> > > > >> input was assembled into the source archives in order to fix the
>> > > > >> process.
>> > > > >> But the release tool is completely irrelevant to the process of
>> > > > >> checking the contents of the source archives.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > > > See above.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> > Most people have their own checklist of stuff they do when
>> > > reviewing a
>> > > > >> > release. Would it be a good idea if we aggregate all those
>> points
>> > > on a
>> > > > >> page
>> > > > >> > on the Maven web site, under the development section? That would
>> > > also
>> > > > >> serve
>> > > > >> > as a guide for "outside reviewers".
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Yes, though that is a separate issue.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Agreed.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> >> > Now, for a respun release thing are trickier. Here it might
>> be
>> > a
>> > > > good
>> > > > >> >> idea
>> > > > >> >> > to include the revision number or hash, or whatever is unique
>> > in
>> > > > the
>> > > > >> SCM
>> > > > >> >> > being used.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> And how do you know from a vote e-mail that it is respun?
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > It should always say so in the subject of the vote email. Not
>> sure
>> > > if
>> > > > >> that
>> > > > >> > is written down somewhere, but that's how we have always done
>> it.
>> > If
>> > > > it's
>> > > > >> > missing I'll add it to our release process document.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> > Even though the code under review will always be under the
>> > > > >> >> > latest tag in the above format (at least for Subversion).
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> Until the next respin.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> If there is a respin, and reviewers are not following the
>> e-mails
>> > > > very
>> > > > >> >> carefully, it would be quite easy to overlook an updated tag.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> This is all about making sure that it is really obvious what
>> the
>> > > > vote is
>> > > > >> >> about.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > Yes, that's why I agreed that it's a good idea to add the
>> > > > revision/hash
>> > > > >> > when doing a respin.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> Publishing the SCM coordinates in the mail is trivial to do,
>> > and
>> > > > >> shows
>> > > > >> >> >> that the input is an important part of the review process.
>> > > > >> >> >> Having the information in the mail thread is also useful for
>> > the
>> > > > >> >> archives.
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> > As others have said before, we aim to automate the release
>> > > process
>> > > > as
>> > > > >> >> much
>> > > > >> >> > as possible. Therefor even a seemingly minor addition will be
>> > > > >> questioned,
>> > > > >> >> > as you have noticed, before it is included in our process.
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> > Can you explain why the information is useful for the
>> archives?
>> > > > I've
>> > > > >> seen
>> > > > >> >> > you mentioned that before. Isn't that moot once the release
>> is
>> > > > >> approved?
>> > > > >> >> > The tag will be in Subversion for the forseable future and
>> > noone
>> > > > will
>> > > > >> >> touch
>> > > > >> >> > it. What am I missing?
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> Why would a release need to be revisited?
>> > > > >> >> Perhaps someone is complaining that one of our releases
>> contains
>> > > code
>> > > > >> >> it should not.
>> > > > >> >> If that is the case, it helps to have the evidence of the
>> release
>> > > > vote
>> > > > >> >> in plain sight.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > Sure it helps in those cases. But the evidence in our case is in
>> > the
>> > > > the
>> > > > >> > source bundle itself, which is even better in my opinion. There
>> > you
>> > > > have
>> > > > >> > the tag in the POM file.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> However, the link to the staging repo is temporary.
>> > > > >> Once the repo is published, the staging repo is deleted and there
>> is
>> > > > >> no direct route to the pom from the vote e-mail.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Once the staging repo is promoted, its content is moved to the real
>> > > > > repository. So the source bundle is available there for anyone who
>> > > wants
>> > > > to
>> > > > > track down the complete contents of a previous release.
>> > > >
>> > > > However that is not the canonical location for source releases;
>> source
>> > > > releases MUST be released via the ASF mirror system.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > So, go download it from the mirror system then. I fail to see how that
>> is
>> > > relevant to this discussion.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > > Again this is where a bit of knowledge of what the Release Plugin
>> > does
>> > > > > helps you. A release done with the Release Plugin will always be
>> > > > available
>> > > > > at
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases/${project.groupId}/${project.artifactId}/${project.version}/${project.artifactId}-${project.version}-source-release.zip
>> > > > > where project.groupId has had '.' replaced by '/'.
>> > > >
>> > > > AIUI the name is not controlled by the Release Plugin.
>> > > >
>> > > > The first part of the name is determined by Maven Convention and ASF
>> > > > hosting.
>> > > > The -source-release.zip suffix depends on settings outside the
>> Release
>> > > > plugin.
>> > > >
>> > > > Apache Commons sometimes uses the Release Plugin, but our archives
>> are
>> > > > called -src.zip and -src.tar.gz
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Okay, I'll rephrase that:
>> > >
>> > > Again this is where a bit of knowledge of what the Release Plugin does
>> > > *during a release from the Apache Maven project* does help you.
>> > >
>> > > Is that clear enough?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> > Note that I'm not talking about respins here, that's another
>> > story.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > On Aug 15, 2013, at 9:01 AM, Chris Graham <
>> > > chrisgw...@gmail.com
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> >> wrote:
>> > > > >> >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone
>> > > > >> >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> >> On 15/08/2013, at 10:05 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > > >> >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> >>> On 15 August 2013 10:08, Chris Graham <
>> > chrisgw...@gmail.com
>> > > >
>> > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>> What sebb does not appear to have understood or
>> accepted,
>> > > as
>> > > > >> >> Stephen
>> > > > >> >> >> has
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>> endlessly pointed out, is that we vote on the source
>> > > bundle,
>> > > > >> not a
>> > > > >> >> scm
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>> revision, and that, strictly speaking a SCM is not even
>> > > > required
>> > > > >> >> >> (however
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>> sensible it is to use one).
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>>
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>> He wants a tree and a revision so that we can compare
>> > > between
>> > > > >> >> >> releases,
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>> where what he should be doing, strictly speaking, is
>> > > > comparing
>> > > > >> >> source
>> > > > >> >> >> tar
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>> balls, as that is what we really are voting on.
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>
>> > > > >> >> >> >>> I agree that what is released (and voted on) are the
>> > source
>> > > > >> >> tarballs.
>> > > > >> >> >> >>> And any such tarballs should be identical (barring
>> > possibly
>> > > > >> >> different
>> > > > >> >> >> >>> EOL settings for text files).
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>
>> > > > >> >> >> >>> However, that is only one of the checks that need to be
>> > > made.
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>
>> > > > >> >> >> >>> The PMC also needs to ensure that the files are being
>> > > released
>> > > > >> under
>> > > > >> >> >> >>> the correct license.
>> > > > >> >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> >> Are not the licenses in the source that is in the source
>> > > > tarball?
>> > > > >> >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> >> If so, can not the rat plugin or similar be used to check
>> > the
>> > > > >> >> >> compliance?
>> > > > >> >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> >>> I contend that the only practical way to check the
>> > licences
>> > > > is to
>> > > > >> >> >> >>> compare the source tarball(s) with the files in SCM.
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>
>> > > > >> >> >> >>> [The files should only be added to SCM if the license is
>> > OK,
>> > > > so
>> > > > >> the
>> > > > >> >> >> >>> SCM tag acts as a database of validated source files.]
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>
>> > > > >> >> >> >>> The SVN revision / Git hash are needed to ensure
>> > uniqueness.
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > >> >> >> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
>> > > > >> >> >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>> > > > >> >> >> >>>
>> > > > >> >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> >>
>> > > > >>
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > >> >> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
>> > > > >> >> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>> > > > >> >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > Thanks,
>> > > > >> >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > Jason
>> > > > >> >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > >> >> >> > Jason van Zyl
>> > > > >> >> >> > Founder, Apache Maven
>> > > > >> >> >> > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>> > > > >> >> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > >> >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know
>> > > what
>> > > > >> you're
>> > > > >> >> >> talking about.
>> > > > >> >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > -- John von Neumann
>> > > > >> >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > >> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
>> > > > >> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> --
>> > > > >> >> >> Dennis Lundberg <dev-h...@maven.apache.org>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
>> > > > >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> --
>> > > > >> >> Dennis Lundberg <dev-h...@maven.apache.org>
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
>> > > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> --
>> > > > >> Dennis Lundberg <dev-h...@maven.apache.org>
>> > > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
>> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Dennis Lundberg <dev-h...@maven.apache.org>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
