I updated the ReleaseToDo wiki page to specify running addVersion.py and 
addBackCompatIndexes.py on the release branch, regardless of release type.

--
Steve
www.lucidworks.com

> On Apr 10, 2017, at 12:23 PM, jim ferenczi <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > It’s not true that “we cannot test the backcompatibility of the 6.5.0 
> > branch with itself”.  After releasing a *.0 releae, the RM can just set the 
> > release branch version to *.1, and then there are no issues with adding the 
> > *.0 backcompat indexes.
> 
> Yes if we add the next bugfix version in the release branch *after* the 
> release. I spent some time last night trying to understand what happened so 
> definitely +1 to make the process more consistent.  
> 
> 2017-04-10 17:21 GMT+02:00 Steve Rowe <[email protected]>:
> It’s not true that “we cannot test the backcompatibility of the 6.5.0 branch 
> with itself”.  After releasing a *.0 releae, the RM can just set the release 
> branch version to *.1, and then there are no issues with adding the *.0 
> backcompat indexes.
> 
> I believe the real reason these don’t get added to the release branches is 
> economy of effort.  It’s not certain that there will be a *.1 release after a 
> *.0 release, so why bother?
> 
> This is a constant source of confusion, though.  Effort is definitely not 
> economized when considering an RM who’s never done a bugfix release before.
> 
> Some perspective: 8/12 of the 5.X and 6.X relase branches had, or will have 
> (6.5.1), at least one bugfix release.  It’s now the *ordinary* case that 
> release branches will get a bugfix release.
> 
> I think it’s time to change the ReleaseToDo to tell RMs to always generate 
> the backcompat indexes on the release branch, regardless of whether the 
> current release is a bugfix release.
> 
> --
> Steve
> www.lucidworks.com
> 
> > On Apr 9, 2017, at 6:05 PM, jim ferenczi <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Ok sorry I should have been more specific. The backcompat tests are not 
> > created on the release branch for the first minor release (eg. 6.5.0). They 
> > are only created for the master branch and the 6x branch. Then during the 
> > first bugfix of the current release branch (eg. 6.5.1) we push the 
> > backcompat test directly on the release branch. This is not done before 
> > because we cannot test the backcompatibitily of the 6.5.0 branch with 
> > itself.
> >
> > 2017-04-09 22:57 GMT+02:00 Joel Bernstein <[email protected]>:
> > Thanks Jim, I don't quite understand the rational for when the backcompat 
> > indexes are created, but that's OK. I'll create a new RC this evening.
> >
> > Joel Bernstein
> > http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 4:44 PM, jim ferenczi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Joel,
> > The backcompat indexes are not added for a minor release. They are added on 
> > the first bugfix release on the minor branch. There is a note in the TODO:
> > "Make sure that the backcompat index for the previous release has been 
> > added to the release branch. (Note that this will ordinarily not have been 
> > done if the current release is X.Y.1, i.e. the first bugfix release off the 
> > stable branch.) See the post-release section "Generate Backcompat Indexes" 
> > below - remember you'll be generating an index for the previous release."
> >
> > I just pushed the backcompat indices in the release branch. You'll need to 
> > generate a new release candidate though.
> >
> > 2017-04-09 3:15 GMT+02:00 Ishan Chattopadhyaya <[email protected]>:
> > No, this has not changed. I think backcompat indexes for the previous 
> > release was not added. The 6.5.0 's RM might've missed this step.
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 4:45 AM, Joel Bernstein <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Looks like I need to add the back compat indexes. In  the releaseTodo this 
> > is post release activity but it looks that has changed.
> >
> > Joel Bernstein
> > http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Joel Bernstein <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I don't believe I've missed any steps listed:
> > https://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseTodo
> >
> > Joel Bernstein
> > http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Joel Bernstein <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Ok, the keys appear to be sorted out now. Smoke test now gets much further 
> > but fails with the error below. I'll go back see if I've missed a step...
> > Releases that don't seem to be tested:
> >
> >   6.5.0
> >
> > Traceback (most recent call last):
> >
> >   File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1476, in <module>
> >
> >     main()
> >
> >   File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1420, in main
> >
> >     smokeTest(c.java, c.url, c.revision, c.version, c.tmp_dir, c.is_signed, 
> > ' '.join(c.test_args))
> >
> >   File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1458, in smokeTest
> >
> >     unpackAndVerify(java, 'lucene', tmpDir, 'lucene-%s-src.tgz' % version, 
> > gitRevision, version, testArgs, baseURL)
> >
> >   File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 622, in unpackAndVerify
> >
> >     verifyUnpacked(java, project, artifact, unpackPath, gitRevision, 
> > version, testArgs, tmpDir, baseURL)
> >
> >   File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 768, in verifyUnpacked
> >
> >     confirmAllReleasesAreTestedForBackCompat(version, unpackPath)
> >
> >   File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1396, in 
> > confirmAllReleasesAreTestedForBackCompat
> >
> >     raise RuntimeError('some releases are not tested by 
> > TestBackwardsCompatibility?')
> >
> > RuntimeError: some releases are not tested by TestBackwardsCompatibility?
> >
> >
> > Joel Bernstein
> > http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Joel Bernstein <[email protected]> wrote:
> > My key has appeared: http://home.apache.org/keys/group/lucene.asc.
> >
> > I'll work on an RC this evening.
> >
> > Joel Bernstein
> > http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Joel Bernstein <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Ok, I've added the PGP fingerprint to my account on id.apache.org. I'll 
> > wait until step #1 completes.
> >
> > Then I'll populate the three key files mentioned in Ishan's notes.
> >
> > Then I'll regenerate the RC.
> >
> > Joel Bernstein
> > http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Joel Bernstein <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I need to get me public key into my profile on id.apache.org. I'll work on 
> > that first.
> >
> > Joel Bernstein
> > http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Steve Rowe <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Joel,
> >
> >
> > > On Apr 7, 2017, at 4:36 PM, Steve Rowe <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > a key generated with gpg2 won’t be visible to gpg.
> >
> > Lower-impact fix (maybe) than symlinking - this will make your public key 
> > visible to ‘gpg’:
> >
> > $ gpg --recv-key EE64CB1E
> >
> > --
> > Steve
> > www.lucidworks.com
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to