Not sure we can go with #4: the binary release requires compilation under Windows and Linux (for platform artifacts). It means at least two containers and looks like overcomplicated. Also windows requires a license even it start somewhere in a virtual environment.
my vote for #3 as most simple solution On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 9:22 PM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > Honestly, #3 and #4 look pretty similar for me. Considering that all the > environment is already set for #3 I would go for it. > > — > Denis > > > On Aug 23, 2017, at 8:37 AM, Alexey Dmitriev <admitr...@gridgain.com> > wrote: > > > > +1 > > option #3 looks good > > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Oleg Ostanin <oosta...@gridgain.com> > wrote: > > > >> Hello Igniters, I'd like to know which release option is preferred for > the > >> community. I've done some research and some tests and I think the most > >> transparent way is option #3. > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:28 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> There's also #4: > >>> - providing an official environment, comprised of the toolchain, > >>> compilers, libs, etc,. The same environment (read "a container") could > >>> be used by an individual developer, RM, and/or in CI system for > >>> builds, tests, etc. And then you can have #3 pretty much for free! > >>> > >>> We are doing this in Bigtop for a much more complex environment, set > >>> of components and supported OS. I am sure it would be easy to do in > >>> Ignite. > >>> -- > >>> With regards, > >>> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik > >>> 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622 > >>> > >>> Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author, > >>> and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author > >>> might be affiliated with at the moment of writing. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 5:37 AM, Oleg Ostanin <oosta...@gridgain.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> I'd like to start a discussion about Apache Ignite release procedure. > >>>> > >>>> I'm working on ticket Ignite-5249 "The release build procedure should > >> be > >>>> placed on the CI/CD server and available to run for the release > >>> engineer." > >>>> > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5249 > >>>> > >>>> Currently we have three options for release: > >>>> > >>>> 1. Release engineer can do all the necessary steps on his local > >> machine. > >>> It > >>>> will require installing tons of soft like maven, doxigen, candle and > so > >>> on. > >>>> Also building .net part of the project will require access to Windows > >> OS. > >>>> Build steps will not be transparent for community. Environment will > not > >>> be > >>>> the same for each release which can lead to the compatibility issues. > >>>> > >>>> 2. All the steps (including signing) can be done on the public > >> continuous > >>>> integration server. Environment will be the same for each release, all > >>> the > >>>> steps will be transparent for community, but it will require uploading > >> at > >>>> least one private gpg certificate on the server. This is the high > >>> security > >>>> risk and I'm mentioning this option only for the sake of completeness. > >>>> > >>>> 3. Building of the project can be performed on the public continuous > >>>> integration server and then artifacts can be downloaded on the local > >>>> machine and signed and deployed to the staging repository from that > >> local > >>>> machine by running maven commands. No sharing of any credentials and > >>>> certificates will be needed, environment will be the same for each > >>> release, > >>>> all the steps will be transparent for community, artifacts created on > >> the > >>>> CI server can be verified by check-sums after uploading to the > >>> repository. > >>>> > >>>> Please, let me know if you have any suggestion or any questions about > >>>> anything related. > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Alexey Dmitriev, VP Engineering > > *GridGain Systems* > > www.gridgain.com > > -- Sergey Kozlov GridGain Systems www.gridgain.com
