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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Monday, October 2, 2017, 5:39:40 AM, Woonsan Ko wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Saturday, September 30, 2017, 3:39:24 AM, Woonsan Ko wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> >>>>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> 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 >
