OK all: the new git SHA is 31545805a55dbe5e495403d84172fc865a4935e0 Lesson learned is that we should be specific about how precisely to test things, and that RMs (me in this case) should attempt those things in a completely clean env (ex nuking all the caches).
Towards that end, beyond the usual apache stuff. If you want to test the contents themselves, execute basically the same stuff as dubbo mentions in their "Verify Release Candidates" section. We have the same requirements as they do, but they already have a TODO list. We can make one like this later I guess. https://dubbo.incubator.apache.org/en-us/blog/prepare-an-apache-release.html I don't know if we restart the 3 days now or not.. it doesn't really matter as no-one is blocking on this 0.1 release. Anyway, appreciate in advance those who are up to practicing verifying a release! -A On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 2:13 PM Adrian Cole <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for understanding, Zoltan. FWIW, the test in question had the > incorrect naming convention for an integration test. Tommy noticed > that it should have never run in the package phase anyway. This > corrects that: https://github.com/apache/incubator-zipkin-brave-karaf/pull/28 > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 1:35 PM Zoltán Nagy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Vote: +1 > > > > Yeah in general I'd say trust that CI has already verified we're OK, and > > don't run integration tests on package / install in the released artifacts. > > Good point about Docker as well. I've just tried `./mvnw package` on a > > clone from git - first run passed, then the second one failed with the same > > error as the source release. I'm ready to let this go as "finicky > > integration tests". > > > > The release is Good Enough (TM) as is IMHO, assuming we provide some > > command-line to package it up without running the integration tests. Of > > course it'd be even nicer if users didn't even have to do _that_, but let's > > not block the release on this. > > > > Note on stripping itests from the source release: ideally that'd be done > > without modifying the code-base, since one of the steps pre-vote is > > verifying that the code in the release is actually the code in the cited > > commit hash - release-time code modification makes that harder (though not > > impossible, the difference should be trivial in any case). I _guess_ that'd > > mean making package / install / whatever not run itests, and adding itests > > to CI explicitly, but as it's been proven several times, I only have > > superficial knowledge of Maven, so I'll stop trying to guess here. > > > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 12:13 PM Adrian Cole <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > FWIW the build worked on my laptop. it might be an environment nuance. > > > Karaf itests are sensitive, and so for example end users shouldn't > > > require anything delicate. For example, would you fail a build because > > > a user can't install docker that's a prereq? We are only vetting code > > > I think we should step back from signing ourselves up to make every > > > potential user able to run all the myriad of integration tests > > > possible in our environments. > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 1:09 PM Zoltán Nagy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > however if there is something in the zip it should work. > > > > > > > > Agree. I pretended to be a user with relatively little knowledge about > > > the > > > > internals here - with that hat on, I don't mind whether it's the itests > > > or > > > > whatever else that's failing, all I know is that `./mvnw package` should > > > > give me something I can deploy. > > > > > > > > > I will lightly look into how much logic we need in > > > > > general to strip itests out completely. > > > > > > > > Weak opinion: I like that tests are shipped with the release, so that > > > (if I > > > > use the source release) there's a last line of defense against badness. > > > Not > > > > to mention, this way tests are also run in an environment that's closer > > > to > > > > my production. Still, this is mostly academical - I expect 99% of our > > > users > > > > to use the binary convenience artifacts, so the point is somewhat moot. > > > > > > > > > on a related note, it could be helpful to have Jenkins check our > > > release > > > > > tags > > > > > > > > That should be simple enough to add, since in pipelines we can say stuff > > > > like "when { tag "release-*" }" where the wildcard is an Ant-style > > > > wildcard. At the same time: since tags for us are always on master, I > > > > mostly expect this to add no additional value, since we already run > > > > tests > > > > on master pushes. Since tests on CI passed on the commit you tagged for > > > the > > > > release, I expect the error to be somehow introduced by the packaging > > > > process. In that case we'd want to run tests against the RC source > > > > artifacts - this also shouldn't be too hard to add, but would probably > > > > be > > > > best to set up as a job that's manually triggered against a specific zip > > > > once it's uploaded (consider: we can automatically trigger on tags, but > > > > more likely than not, the release at that point hasn't been uploaded to > > > the > > > > ASF dev repo yet). At that point this is "just" a convenience / extra > > > > safety net, since voting PMC members will do this check locally anyway. > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 10:38 AM Adrian Cole <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > thanks zoltan. we dont deploy the itests so probably dont generally > > > need to > > > > > validate them for ASF reasons. however if there is something in the > > > zip it > > > > > should work. I will look into this to see if it is failing because it > > > > > should fail or not. also I will lightly look into how much logic we > > > need in > > > > > general to strip itests out completely. > > > > > > > > > > on a related note, it could be helpful to have Jenkins check our > > > release > > > > > tags (mvnw install not deploy) so that we know the actual code still > > > works > > > > > (vs a distribution of it) > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2019, 5:20 PM Zoltán Nagy <[email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Confirming we're now in a better state: > > > > > > > > > > > > * GPG signature and SHA512 of the artifact check out. I expected to > > > also > > > > > > see a signature for the checksum, but > > > > > > https://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution doesn't mention > > > that, > > > > > so I > > > > > > think we're fine. > > > > > > * Confirming base dir is now non-confusing :) > > > > > > * Code in release matches code at commit 4c28076fd > > > > > > * `./mvnw compile` succeeds (note: the license checker Maven plugin > > > > > > complains for about a screenful about failing to find the latest git > > > > > > commit, but this doesn't fail the build) > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I'm still -1: > > > > > > > > > > > > * `./mvnw package` fails both on my macOS and Windows Linux > > > > > > Subsystem > > > > > > environments: io.zipkin.brave.itests.BraveTest fails with > > > > > > java.lang.ClassNotFoundException for zipkin2.reporter.Sender. Gist > > > > > > of > > > > > > relevant Maven output: > > > > > > https://gist.github.com/abesto/632f7e7e515de2adb9b3ba04d7606659 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 4:10 AM Adrian Cole <[email protected] > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > sorry I forgot to mention that GPG asc files weren't there because > > > I > > > > > > > used the old "release" profile not the "apache-release" one. I've > > > > > > > removed the old profile to remove confusion as it is no longer > > > > > > > used > > > > > > > anyway > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 5:08 AM Adrian Cole < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK all should be resolved now. The new git hash is > > > > > > > > 4c28076fd617f4896cae77e773de7090bcebe6b4 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All other locations etc should be the same. Here is a summary of > > > > > > > glitches fixed: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * zip wasn't named correctly I formerly manually fixed it. Now > > > that's > > > > > > > automatic > > > > > > > > * zip basedir wasn't intuitive. it is now brave-karaf-$version > > > > > > > > * we accidentally published itests, now we don't > > > > > > > > * dummy release notes didn't explain this was only a canary > > > release > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There was no code change only build script stuff. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -A > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 10:38 PM Jorge Quilcate < > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/9/19 2:30 PM, Adrian Cole wrote: > > > > > > > > > > agreed the release notes link is empty. I didn't go through > > > the > > > > > > > formality > > > > > > > > > > of making release notes for 0.1.2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 9, 2019, 9:19 PM Brian Devins-Suresh < > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> +1 > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Are release votes not supposed to include some synopsis of > > > the > > > > > > > changes? I > > > > > > > > > >> know this is a first release within the incubator but it > > > might > > > > > be > > > > > > > good to > > > > > > > > > >> just call that out? > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 6:41 AM José Carlos Chávez < > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> +1 > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> Den lør. 9. feb. 2019, 11:36 skrev Adrian Cole < > > > > > > > [email protected]: > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I can't find the GPG signature for the artifact and the > > > > > > > checksum. I'm > > > > > > > > > >>>>> looking at > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/zipkin/brave-karaf/0.1.2/ > > > > > > > > > >>>>> , > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and am expecting to see two .asc files, and am not > > > > > > > > > >>>>> seeing > > > > > any. > > > > > > > Am I > > > > > > > > > >>>> looking > > > > > > > > > >>>>> in the wrong place? > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> no that is the right place. I must have missed something. > > > the > > > > > > > stuff > > > > > > > > > >> asked > > > > > > > > > >>>> me for my GPG password so something must have gotten > > > > > > > > > >>>> lost. > > > > > will > > > > > > > report > > > > > > > > > >>>> back. > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> The folder contained in the source zip is called > > > > > > > > > >>>>> "brave-karaf-parent-0.1.2". I'd expect it to be just > > > > > > > > > >>> "brave-karaf-0.1.2". > > > > > > > > > >>>>> (Quite possible I'm just missing some Java ecosystem > > > > > knowledge > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > >> this > > > > > > > > > >>>> is > > > > > > > > > >>>>> fine). > > > > > > > > > >>>> I think this is also valid. Let me look into customizing > > > the > > > > > > > artifact > > > > > > > > > >>>> basedir. It is inheriting this from the aggregator (base > > > > > > pom.xml) > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > >>> we > > > > > > > > > >>>> intentionally name different as often the actual lib is > > > called > > > > > > > > > >> something > > > > > > > > > >>>> like brave-karaf > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
