On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Woonsan Ko <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>" [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 <[email protected]>" [ultimate] > > Please take a review. > > Regards, > > Woonsan > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> 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 <[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 >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> Thanks, >> Daniel Dekany >>
