Sounds good. Shall we make these pilots for the new release process?
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Luca Boccassi <luca.bocca...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > During the Brussels meetup/hackaday I backported Kevin's Github+Travis > release to zerom4-1 and zeromq4-x. > > We have quite a few bug fixes queued up there since the last stable > releases a year ago - shall we do a bugfix release for both? Those would > be 4.1.5 and 4.0.8. > > Just to be sure, I've verified with abi-compliance-checker [1] that > there was no ABI breakage with the respective stable versions. > > Kind regards, > Luca Boccassi > > [1] https://github.com/lvc/abi-compliance-checker > > On Mon, 2016-05-09 at 13:36 +0200, Kevin Sapper wrote: >> The deployment has a couple of constraints (see .travis.yml -> deploy: on: >> <constraints>). >> One constraint is the repo MUST be "zeromq/libzmq". If we port this to >> zeromq4-x and zeromq4-1 >> we need to adjust this or remove this constraint altogether. >> >> 2016-05-09 13:04 GMT+02:00 Luca Boccassi <luca.bocca...@gmail.com>: >> >> > Awesome, thanks! >> > >> > So now if we port this to zeromq4-x and zeromq4-1, we'll just have to >> > push the tags corresponding to the last commit of each previous release, >> > right? It might make moving all downloadable to Github a much easier >> > process. >> > >> > On Mon, 2016-05-09 at 11:45 +0200, Kevin Sapper wrote: >> > > On libzmq master it's now possible to let travis automatically deploy >> > > artifacts. The deployment is triggered if a new tag is created. I've >> > > created a test release and tag[1] to see if it is working properly. The >> > > files that are available under this release have been deploy by travis. >> > > >> > > [1] https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/releases/tag/v4.0.2-test >> > > >> > > 2016-05-04 11:34 GMT+02:00 Luca Boccassi <luca.bocca...@gmail.com>: >> > > >> > > > On Wed, 2016-05-04 at 05:46 +0200, Michal Vyskocil wrote: >> > > > > Hi, >> > > > > >> > > > > Just for a curiosity - the content of packaging/debian collide with >> > > > > standard Debian packaging? It is intentionally there to not clash, so >> > > > maybe >> > > > > solve this problem. Either by not generating them, either by defying >> > > > safer >> > > > > location. >> > > > >> > > > It's not a problem with the location, it's just that the Debian source >> > > > package will end up having packaging stuff duplicated and with >> > different >> > > > content: 2 changelogs, 2 control files, etc. >> > > > >> > > > But again this is exactly why make dist exists - having that generated >> > > > packaging code in the repository is useful, no need to remove it. >> > > > >> > > > > On Tue, 2016-05-03 at 18:26 +0200, Pieter Hintjens wrote: >> > > > > > One note, 'make dist' always fails the first few times because >> > files >> > > > > > are missing. Keep this in mind. The git tarball has the great >> > > > > > advantage of never failing. (And since it makes tarballs look like >> > git >> > > > > > clones it gives the same experience to all developers.) >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I'd vote for killing 'make dist'. It also makes us dependent on >> > > > autotools. >> > > > > >> > > > > Uhm I just tried fresh clones of both libzmq and zeromq4-1, >> > > > > and ./autogen.sh; ./configure; make dist works just fine. >> > > > > It was broken a while ago, but I fixed it, and now the CI tests that >> > it >> > > > > works. >> > > > > >> > > > > Besides, IMHO there are 2 big problems with just tarring up the git >> > > > > repo. >> > > > > >> > > > > First of all, it doesn't remove the dependency, it just moves it >> > down to >> > > > > the user. Which means we'll start getting bug reports that are due to >> > > > > the different versions of autotools or cmake used (and there are a >> > lot! >> > > > > ). >> > > > > >> > > > > But most importantly, the tarball will ship stuff that shouldn't be >> > > > > shipped, which is a huge problem for distribution packagers. For >> > > > > example, in CZMQ, the packaging bit would be shipped. That would >> > break >> > > > > many things in the package build process, and the distro maintainer >> > (ie: >> > > > > me :-) ) would have to take the shipped tarball and sanitize it, >> > nuking >> > > > > all extraneous bits. This should not be necessary! That's exactly the >> > > > > reason "make dist" exists. >> > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Pieter Hintjens <p...@imatix.com> >> > wrote: >> > > > > > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Luca Boccassi < >> > > > luca.bocca...@gmail.com> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Is any of the API I marked as draft actually ready for release? >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Even so, leave it 'draft' until it's actually being used. >> > Changing >> > > > > > > minds is expensive otherwise. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> So should we use branches instead for bugfix releases? >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > All fixes to master. In the extraordinary case where a bugfix >> > release >> > > > > > > cannot be made from master, a branch could work. We never needed >> > this >> > > > > > > in e.g. CZMQ. I doubt we'd need it in libzmq. I absolutely >> > recommend >> > > > > > > against branches unless it's the only option. (And I think we've >> > > > > > > designed ourselves space to never need that option.) >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Isn't it possible to do the github release thing with the >> > result of >> > > > > > >> "make dist"? I think I've read somewhere that you can use the >> > > > result of >> > > > > > >> CI builds. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Seems Kevin has solved this, almost :) >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > -Pieter >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > > > zeromq-dev mailing list >> > > > > > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org >> > > > > > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > > zeromq-dev mailing list >> > > > > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org >> > > > > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >> > > > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > > zeromq-dev mailing list >> > > > > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org >> > > > > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > zeromq-dev mailing list >> > > > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org >> > > > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >> > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > zeromq-dev mailing list >> > > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org >> > > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > zeromq-dev mailing list >> > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org >> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> zeromq-dev mailing list >> zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
