Thanks Alex for noting these gaps! -r
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 3:20 PM Alexander Klimetschek <aklim...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote: > FWIW, I reported all these as issues (and the gen-release-vote.py one was > already reported): > > * https://github.com/apache/openwhisk-release/issues/342 > * <https://github.com/apache/openwhisk-release/issues/341> > https://github.com/apache/openwhisk-release/issues/341 > * https://github.com/apache/openwhisk-release/issues/340 > * https://github.com/apache/openwhisk-release/issues/317 > > Cheers, > Alex > > ________________________________ > From: Alexander Klimetschek <aklim...@adobe.com.INVALID> > Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 11:47 > To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org <dev@openwhisk.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Upcoming wskdebug release 1.3 > > Also: the ./gen-release-vote.py script assumes a certain naming convention > for cloning the https://github.com/apache/openwhisk-release repo: > > * remote "upstream": for the actual repo > * remote "origin" (or anything): for ones local fork > > In my case I had no fork and just "origin" for the actual repo, resulting > in this error: > > subprocess.CalledProcessError: Command '['git', 'show-ref', '--hash', > '--abbrev', '--', 'refs/remotes/upstream/master']' returned non-zero exit > status 1 > > I quickly fixed it by changing the script at [1] to use "origin". > > Not sure what the best solution is, I guess everyone has a different > approach with forks vs. not. But maybe make it configurable and print a > hint if the git show-ref returns an error? > > [1] > https://github.com/apache/openwhisk-release/blob/master/tools/gen-release-vote.py#L88 > > Cheers, > Alex > ________________________________ > From: Alexander Klimetschek <aklim...@adobe.com.INVALID> > Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 21:17 > To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org <dev@openwhisk.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Upcoming wskdebug release 1.3 > > Few things I noticed so far while prepping the release based on [1]: > > 1. It mentions "Start a [DISCUSS] thread on the dev list proposing the > release" but I rarely see this happening in practice. How strictly is it > required if nobody else is working on the same codebase? > 2. Not really clear what to do _before_ the release signing (if you > missed those, you have to redo the whole procedure...) > * npm: release version in package.json > * CHANGELOG > 3. No link to PGP key management instructions (e.g. to upload > fingerprint on id.apache.org). I eventually found this to be helpful [2]. > 4. No link to Apache Rat which it says to run manually. > > [1] > https://github.com/apache/openwhisk-release/blob/master/docs/release_instructions.md > [2] > https://infra.apache.org/new-committers-guide.html#set-up-security-and-pgp-keys > > Cheers, > Alex > > ________________________________ > From: Rodric Rabbah <rod...@gmail.com> > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 08:27 > To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org <dev@openwhisk.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Upcoming wskdebug release 1.3 > > I reviewed and merged your PR. Instructions link you found is the correct > starting point. If you find something that isn’t clear please use the > opportunity to improve the docs 🙏🏼 > > -r > > > On Jul 22, 2020, at 11:24 AM, Alexander Klimetschek > <aklim...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > Hi fellow committers, > > > > I want to start the wskdebug 1.3 release soon. Two asks/questions: > > > > 1. would love to get reviews for the last remaining PR [1] so that I can > merge it > > 2. will then try to start the release process myself. instructions at > [2] are the ones to follow, right? > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/openwhisk-wskdebug/pull/76 > > [2] > https://github.com/apache/openwhisk-release/blob/master/docs/release_instructions.md > > > > Cheers, > > Alex >
