Re: credentials: Does that mean that the git config is set to use the credential manager? If so, maybe that should be turned off? When I did the release, I had to type my password many times. Not sure what Piotr's experience was.
Re: Branches: I don't remember what the steps are. I didn't think there was a 1b, I don't see it in my emails, just a 1a that did both compiler-jburg-types and compiler-build-tools. Assuming 1a and 1b now reference these two projects, the thing to keep in mind is that they are optional projects and so 1a (and probably 1b) won't be run for every release. So, IMO, the branch should be made for the main projects in royale-compiler. But if the changes you made effectively change the way the poms are run (when there was a -utils profile for those two projects, the main pom still got loaded and that may not be true now), then the set of steps may need to test for existence of the branch or something like that, not sure. In the end, the steps are just what you would run on your local computer to fill the nexus staging repo, but broken into discrete steps at each point Maven would normally push or sign. If you haven’t, it might be worth just running Maven locally to fill a staging repo with and without the jburg-types and build-tools projects to see how to control when Maven makes branches and updates versions. Then come back and break that down into steps on the CI server. HTH, -Alex On 3/23/20, 12:30 PM, "Christofer Dutz" <[email protected]> wrote: Another thing we just discovered. The current setup seems to mess up the branches: - 001 creates the branch and updates develop rel = 0.9.7-SNAPSHOT, develop = 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT - 001b updates DEVELOP and not the release branch - 002 pushes develop to the release-branch hereby bumping the release branch to the next version rel = 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT, develop = 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT If the 001b changes would have been done in the release branch, develop would still be using the old version. So I would propose to change the order of 001 and 001b to "release" the build tools before branching. And I would propose to fix 002 to work on the right branch. As I could see in maven central you have been releasing only even version number so I assume this problem exists for quite some time now. Chris Am 23.03.20, 20:12 schrieb "Carlos Rovira" <[email protected]>: Hi, we just saw that windows stores a personal access token in Windows Crendetials, so the RM is responsible to remove it when finish all the operations. El lun., 23 mar. 2020 a las 19:44, Alex Harui (<[email protected]>) escribió: > > > On 3/23/20, 11:32 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > I did check and I didn't directly find any .git .ssh or whatsoever > directories ... do you have an Idea where that would be saved on windows? > The commits are authorized by Carlos and it's his RDP connection, > that's why I'm asking if there is any RDP magic going on. I didn't see him > entering anything anywhere and he said he didn't do it before. > > I don't know for sure, but here's a few links: > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstackoverflow.com%2Fquestions%2F46878457%2Fadding-git-credentials-on-windows&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cd54039f6a3064e27164808d7cf60ae32%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637205886459464311&sdata=I2oCfv5gcTIOSWmpe2U4f61%2ByxteRdt2sTaFCcvB51s%3D&reserved=0 > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgit-scm.com%2Fbook%2Fen%2Fv2%2FGit-Tools-Credential-Storage&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cd54039f6a3064e27164808d7cf60ae32%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637205886459474305&sdata=YBnZdIqu1CA6JGl%2BQvs9KzywrWLDRB37A2iLz7ms46M%3D&reserved=0 > > I'm wondering if Carlos can remember if he did.anything like that back > when he wrote this: > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.apache.org%2Fthread.html%2F8ae38cea0c736418b432b2353f967161c4f8448261a3bdce390e8c46%2540%253Cdev.royale.apache.org%253E&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cd54039f6a3064e27164808d7cf60ae32%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637205886459474305&sdata=vnPf1CNqsUgl00XwfgTo3svMBw%2FpCniL6VAJhucu7PA%3D&reserved=0 > > As I replied back then, we shouldn't have GPG signing on the CI Server, > and hopefully no other credentials got added either. > > HTH, > -Alex > > PS: I'm purposefully not looking myself so as not to accidentally boot > someone off the RDP connection. > > > > > > > -- Carlos Rovira https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cd54039f6a3064e27164808d7cf60ae32%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637205886459474305&sdata=zwg6%2Btn5C0lvXpRL8uKV5VLnj9ffqMaRKJlXK%2B3cj5o%3D&reserved=0
