Definitely. I'm already working on an offline document. I hope to have something on the wiki by EOD today (PST).
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016, 10:34 AM Stian Soiland-Reyes <[email protected]> wrote: > +1! Would you be OK to start? I guess Andy's list is a good starting > point. I can add my "shell tricks" where they fit. (and then we can > remove the more evil ones :)) > > On 2 March 2016 at 17:42, Gale Naylor <[email protected]> wrote: > > I like the "what do i do now" section. What if we develop it in the wiki > > and then, when we're happy with it, migrate it to the community section > of > > the website? > > > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 7:18 AM Stian Soiland-Reyes <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Yeah, we can develop it in the wiki, or append it to > >> http://taverna.incubator.apache.org/community/releasing perhaps? > >> > >> There should be a "I received a VOTE email, what do I do now?" section. > >> > >> On 2 March 2016 at 11:59, Ian Dunlop <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Hello, > >> > > >> > I think we need to capture all these tricks somewhere. Stian > suggested we > >> > propose updating the 'official' apache release page - sounds like a > good > >> > idea - but I think we could add it to the taverna pages first and then > >> > maybe send a link to it to the (I don't know) incubator list to gauge > >> > interest. > >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> > > >> > Ian > >> > > >> > On 1 March 2016 at 22:42, Gale Naylor <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Thank you, Stian! Some of my questions I figured out today, but some > I > >> did > >> >> not, so I very much appreciate the hints and instructions. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:28 PM Stian Soiland-Reyes <[email protected] > > > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > Thanks for reviewing! > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > (1) How do I verify that the commit id in the downloaded files > >> matches > >> >> > that > >> >> > > in the VOTE email? (I've looked on the internet, but have yet to > >> find > >> >> > > anything helpful.) > >> >> > > >> >> > I don't think most people check this deeply.. but I guess at least > one > >> >> > voter should. > >> >> > > >> >> > Here's what I do: > >> >> > > >> >> > mkdir 1 ; cd 1 # new folder > >> >> > git clone that-repository > >> >> > git checkout that-commit-id-from-the-email-asdfjaskdjfsakjdfksajdf > >> >> > rm -rf * > >> >> > unzip ../the-release-candidate.zip > >> >> > mv apache-taverna-*/* . (one level up) > >> >> > git status > >> >> > > >> >> > Git will then check the checksums of every file and let you know > what > >> >> > has 'changed' (as it would believe you have edited it). > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Here's another way that doesn't require using the 'git' command: > >> >> > > >> >> > Download the git commit corresponding to the email by browsing for > it > >> on > >> >> > GitHub: > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-taverna-language/tree/66866a5454ed23262c055f65155d7a195c68a17d > >> >> > Click "Download ZIP" > >> >> > > >> >> > mkdir 1 ; cd 1 > >> >> > unzip ../66866a5454ed23262c055f65155d7a195c68a17d.zip > >> >> > > >> >> > cd ../ ; mkdir 2 ; cd 2 > >> >> > unzip release-candidate.zip > >> >> > > >> >> > cd .. > >> >> > diff -uR 1 2 > >> >> > > >> >> > The files that differ (and their differences!) will be shown. > >> >> > > >> >> > Make sure you don't have any target/ folders before diff-ing (run > mvn > >> >> > clean to be sure) > >> >> > > >> >> > If you do the above with a git clone instead - remember that the > zip > >> >> > doesn't include the .git/ folder - so you would have to delete the > >> >> > checked out .git folder before diffing. (Don't do this on your > >> >> > regular checkout as you would lose all local branches!) > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > (2) Are the "binary artifacts" in the target folders? Which files > >> are > >> >> > > considered "binary artifacts?" > >> >> > > >> >> > Well, the target/ files are binary artifacts, but they (should) > have > >> >> > been made by your build on your machine - not be part of the source > >> >> > ZIP. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > One thing to look out for is in the downloaded source ZIP that > there > >> >> > are no unexpected binary artifacts in it *before you build* - e.g. > >> >> > there should not be any *.jars in there. (The source distribution > >> >> > should be 'clean'). We do have some *expected* binaries, pictures > and > >> >> > test workflows for instance. As those can't have license headers > they > >> >> > should be declared in NOTICE/LICENSE if they came from > third-parties. > >> >> > (E.g. if we used a Creative Commons-licensed JPEG picture) > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > In terms of release candidate, the binaries would be installers and > >> >> > JARs etc., under > >> >> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/taverna/binaries/ > >> >> > (But there are none for this release candidate) > >> >> > > >> >> > ..in addition to the JARs that have been staged to the Maven > >> repository > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachetaverna-1011/org/apache/taverna/ > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > (3) How do I verify that the build produces the binaries? By > visual > >> >> > > inspection? What am I looking for? > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > As for checking the Maven repository, if you want to do it really > >> >> > proper you should check that all the JARs that are staged can be > built > >> >> > from the downloaded release candidate ZIP - e.g. that your target/ > >> >> > folder contains all of the same ones. If I do this, I do a > recursive > >> >> > wget of the repository, and then compare the result of "find . > -name > >> >> > '*jar'" in the wget-tree with */*/target/*.jar. I don't think > most > >> >> > people do this. > >> >> > > >> >> > Paranoid-mode would be to download each JAR and check that they > only > >> >> > have the same *.class files - but these would differ for every > build > >> >> > and so can't be compared any further without lots of clever > tooling - > >> >> > so nobody does this. (I think there should be an Apache-hosted > tool or > >> >> > Maven plugin that could do this). > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Practically the best is just to click briefly into the repository > in a > >> >> > browser and see there are not any 'additional' folders that > shouldn't > >> >> > be there, e.g. we are now voting on taverna-maven-parent, > taverna-osgi > >> >> > and taverna-language, and so we should not see > >> >> > org/apache/taverna/engine in there - as that is a group Id from > >> >> > taverna-engine. > >> >> > > >> >> > (We have already changed the groupIDs to correspond to the > repository > >> >> > which corresponds to the release name, so at least that > correspondance > >> >> > is easy to check on Taverna, but not so on many other projects). > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > As binary releases from Apache Software Foundation are considered > >> >> > "convenience only" they are not crucial for the vote - the source > >> >> > release is the golden thing which everything else should be made > from. > >> >> > Practically speaking "everyone" uses the JARs from Maven repository > >> >> > though, so I wouldn't dismiss them totally - at least one person in > >> >> > the vote should do such a check. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > (4) How do I check the dependencies? > >> >> > > >> >> > mvn dependency:tree gives a nice list - but what should you check > for? > >> >> > Well, it's mainly about licensing - > >> >> > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html lists what is > compatible as > >> >> > dependencies of an ASF release. Now you don't need to go through > the > >> >> > list - but sometimes there are Well Known forbidden dependencies > that > >> >> > People (tm) recognize -e.g. mysql-connector and Hibernate are > banned > >> >> > as they are (L)GPL. > >> >> > > >> >> > Luckily there's another Maven plugin that can do the job: > >> >> > > >> >> > mvn license:aggregate-add-third-party > >> >> > > >> >> > cat target/generated-sources/license/THIRD-PARTY.txt | sort > >> >> > > >> >> > (Aduna BSD license) OpenRDF Sesame: HTTP client > >> >> > (org.openrdf.sesame:sesame-http-client:2.7.0 - > >> >> > http://www.openrdf.org/sesame-core/sesame-http/sesame-http-client/ > ) > >> >> > (Aduna BSD license) OpenRDF Sesame: HTTP protocol > >> >> > (org.openrdf.sesame:sesame-http-protocol:2.7.0 - > >> >> > > http://www.openrdf.org/sesame-core/sesame-http/sesame-http-protocol/) > >> >> > (..) > >> >> > (The Apache Software License, Version 2.0) Xerces2-j > >> >> > (xerces:xercesImpl:2.11.0 - https://xerces.apache.org/xerces2-j/) > >> >> > (Unknown license) commons-beanutils > >> >> > (commons-beanutils:commons-beanutils:1.7.0 - no url defined) > >> >> > (Unknown license) com.springsource.org.jaxen > >> >> > (org.jaxen:com.springsource.org.jaxen:1.1.1 - no url defined) > >> >> > (Unknown license) com.springsource.org.jdom > >> >> > (org.jdom:com.springsource.org.jdom:1.1.0 - no url defined) > >> >> > (Unknown license) Logging > (commons-logging:commons-logging:1.0.3 > >> >> > - http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/logging/) > >> >> > > >> >> > (BTW, those last 4 are already checked to be OK, see > >> >> > > http://dev.mygrid.org.uk/wiki/display/developer/Third-party+licenses > >> ) > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > Regarding the build output: Since this is the first time I've > done > >> >> this, > >> >> > I > >> >> > > don't know what's okay to ignore. Here is a summary of the > warning > >> >> > messages > >> >> > > I received when I ran mvn clean install. I sent the output to two > >> >> > different > >> >> > > files using the following command (Windows 10/ GitBash): mvn > clean > >> >> > install > >> >> > >> output1.txt 2> output2.txt. I appreciate any insight. > >> >> > > >> >> > Great! I think those should be tracked in JIRA as we want to > reduce > >> >> > warnings. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Generally with Maven, if it finishes with a big SUCCESS, then > that's > >> >> > true. The warnings are more like warnings for the developers doing > >> >> > bad-practice-stuff than warnings about something going wrong with > the > >> >> > build. Often the fixes are simple, like adding a @Deprecated tag > >> >> > where you delibately use old APIs, or actually follow the fix > >> >> > suggested by the warning. > >> >> > > >> >> > I think we want to follow Andy's advice and "release early, release > >> >> > often" - which entails a "good enough" - not "super-perfect". > >> >> > Obviously each committer votes independenly by their own quality > >> >> > measures. > >> >> > > >> >> > While Apache Software Foundation always says that community is > king - > >> >> > the Apache name is still recognized by the public as a kind of > >> >> > "quality mark" - if that is deserved or not I won't comment on, > but of > >> >> > course there is also a sense of pride in that we don't want to set > the > >> >> > standard too low. :) > >> >> > > >> >> > (E.g. Taverna just cancelled 3 release candidates as they didn't > pass > >> >> > all their tests on Windows - but the community of another Apache > >> >> > project might not consider Windows important enough to halt a > release) > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > Stian Soiland-Reyes > >> >> > Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating) > >> >> > http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718 > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Stian Soiland-Reyes > >> Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating) > >> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718 > >> > > > > -- > Stian Soiland-Reyes > Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating) > http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718 >
