Yes, I agree that this shouldn't be complicated. I think my confusion stems from the smoke checker allowing ant 1.8 OR 1.9, then. https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py#L193
Unless there's another place where the build fails with 1.9 that I didn't see? The release wiki does explicitly mention ant 1.8.x, so there is some mention of the requirement, but it also reads like it might be an old requirement that was never updated. https://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseTodo On Sun, Jul 2, 2017, 2:19 AM Uwe Schindler <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > > > as said in my previous mail, the release is always done using the minimum > versions. The reason for this is (especially regarding Java version): > > > > The JAR files have to be compiled using the minimum Java version. This is > also required by Oracle’s guidelines, because otherwise they can’t > guarantee that the release also works with the source/target version. So > giving source/target is not enough. This will change with Java 9, where you > can give a new parameter “-release 8” that also compiles against the old > symbols. Lucene already uses this when building with Java 9. > > > > So it is important that a release of Lucene 5 is done with Java 7 and > nothing else, and a release of Lucene 6 or 7 needs to be done with Java 8. > Smoketester verifies this in the resulting JAR files (the META-INF folder > must contain right version numbers). > > > > About “Ant” we do the same, although this requirement is more > questionable. The reason is: Everything else in Lucene’s build has fixed > versions from Maven Central, just Java version and Ant version is coming > from RM’s local machine. So we want to also use the “minimum” version here > – at least for a release, so smoker checks this. This also guarantees that > anybody can at least use the minimum version to build Lucene and Solr. > > > > I don’t think it’s a complicated requirement for the RM to download the > ANT zip file and place it in his home dir! I have a separate user account > for this that I SSH in when doing a release. Jenkins is doing something > similar: It just uses the right Ant version (1.8.2) with an absolute path. > > > > BTW: In Gradle this is similar, you use the Gradle-Wrapper to make > repeatable builds with exact versions! Ant just has no “ant wrapper” 😊 > > > > Uwe > > > > ----- > > Uwe Schindler > > Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen > > http://www.thetaphi.de > > eMail: [email protected] > > > > *From:* Mike Drob [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Sunday, July 2, 2017 7:15 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: Why Does Smoke Tester Fail with Ant 1.10? > > > > Where is the official ant version specified? > > > > https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/lucene/BUILD.txt gives > a minimum version, but not a single version. > > > > Same for Java, actually. > > On Sat, Jul 1, 2017, 6:28 PM Uwe Schindler <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The reason for the failure is that „nightly smoke“ emulates a release. And > for releases we require the release manager to use: > > - exactly the Java version that the release is intended for (e.g., you > cannot make a 6.x release with Java 9) > - the offcial Ant version > > > > The reason for these limitations is reproducibility of releases and to > prevent bugs that might appear without our knowledge. > > > > Uwe > > > > ----- > > Uwe Schindler > > Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen > > http://www.thetaphi.de > > eMail: [email protected] > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Mike > Drob > *Sent:* Sunday, July 2, 2017 1:22 AM > *To:* Lucene Dev <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Why Does Smoke Tester Fail with Ant 1.10? > > > > Hi, > > > > I was recently running ant nightly-smoke and it failed because my version > of ant is too new. The default installed by homebrew is 1.10.1, while the > smoke test expects ant 1.8 or 1.9, looks like. > > > > Searching for ant 1.10 on the dev list gives me tons of false positives > (every jenkins failure, basically) so I have no idea if this has been > discussed or not. > > > > Is the ant version requirement a minimum (1.8+) that was too narrowly > implemented or a specific range due to some known issue in later ant > versions? > > > > Thanks, > > Mike > >
