On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Steve Rowe <sar...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 19, 2013, at 6:44 PM, Michael McCandless <luc...@mikemccandless.com> > wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Chris Hostetter >> <hossman_luc...@fucit.org> wrote: >>> >>> : OK I think a WARNING in smokeTester makes sense ... >>> : >>> : But as Hoss said ... figuring out the release branch from smokeTester >>> : ... isn't easy. Hmm. >>> >>> At a certain point, too much automation is "too much". I already think >>> the snoke tester is too complicated -- what tests the tester? >>> >>> It's great to automate any sanity checks thta can be reliably automated, >>> but we have to remeber that each of us has to take resonsibiliity for hte >>> fact that we are *personally* voting for hte release, and the smoke test >>> scripts are just tools to help save us time doing verifying trivial >>> things. We still need to be concious of what exactly is in the release, >>> and wether it works, and wether the smoke testers "SUCCESS" was really a >>> false positive, etc... >>> >>> "smokeTestRelease.py don't vote to release; People vote to release." >> >> Yeah I agree ... I think we should leave this out of the snoke tester. >> >> buildAndPushRelease already svn ups for you … > > But not every RM will use that.
True. > I think another smoke test might be useful: compare the claimed svn revision > against the revision in the manifest of each archive to be released, e.g. > from the RC2 lucene-core-4.3.0.jar: > > Implementation-Version: 4.3.0 1470054 - simonw - 2013-04-19 23:43:33 > > We would have to supply the revision on the cmdline to the smoke tester, for > the case when the revision is not included in the base URL, and the RM would > have to supply this info in the VOTE thread. Supplying an RC's source is a > good idea anyway: "here's an RC, it's built from svn rXXXXXXX" (no need to > supply rel branch since this is established convention). +1, this is a great idea. Do you want to add this? Or I can ... > RMs can easily get this by running "svn info" from where they build the > release. buildAndPushRelease runs "svnversion" to get this. Hmm but it does not pass -c ... should it? > About automation: Yes, things slip through the cracks. So we learn and add > more checks. Not continuing this process is IMHO a mistake. I completely agree in general: we patch each crack whenever we fall in it. This is a powerful way to improve... But for this particular crack (verifying that the revision of the RC is the latest revision on the release branch) I couldn't see a simple way to do it, w/o having smokeTester make guesses about the name of the release branch ... such guessing/enforced convention crosses the line of what automation should be doing imo and the filled crack could be worse than the unfilled one. Mike McCandless http://blog.mikemccandless.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
