Doesn't this pull request to Upgrade Apache Commons Collections to v3.2.2 also affect Scufl2 API? http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-taverna-dev/201603.mbox/%3Cgit-pr-1-incubator-taverna-server%40git.apache.org%3E
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:30 PM Gale Naylor <[email protected]> wrote: > Draft of How to Review a Release and Vote and outline of How to Check a > Release are on the wiki. I plan to fix links and add detailed tips/tricks > from mailing list later. Feel free to add/delete anything and correct any > errors. (In general, my comments and questions are in italics.) > > Cheers! > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 11:04 AM Gale Naylor <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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 >>> >>
