aries-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Modifications to Aries release process
Date Fri, 06 Jul 2012 15:12:04 GMT
OK, so the release manager doesn't have a problem, but if we update trunk to use the under-vote
1.0.0 versions anyone else is going to need to either build the under-vote artifacts or add
the staging repo while the vote is going on.

At one point we talked about having profiles, one for the earliest usable dependency versions
and one for the latest snapshots.  I even tried it somewhere and it seemed to work.  Would
that solve this problem?  Even if the default profile was for the earliest, under-vote, 1.0.0
artifacts it's not too hard to specify a profile to get the build to work while the vote is

david jencks

On Jul 6, 2012, at 10:51 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:

> Holy, there's *no* extra-step for the release manager, you don't have to
> change your settings.xml or whatever.  It's just less work.
> It will even be easier for users because at the end of the release process,
> everything will be consistent in a snapshot version in trunk.
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Holly Cummins <
>> wrote:
>> Hi David,
>> [snip]
>>> I don't understand the problem.  I thought Guillaume was suggesting that
>> you put a lot of released artifacts, built by the rm (you) in the same
>> nexus staging repo.  Since you just built API-1.0.0 on your build machine,
>> it will be in your local maven repo, and you can continue to build all the
>> other stuff that needs it on your repo.  No one else can get the 1.0.0
>> artifacts from a remote maven  repo until you close the staging repo, but
>> they can also build the 1.0.0 artifacts themselves, just like you did (they
>> won't have to change the versions, since the relevant code will already be
>> in a svn tag from running the release plugin).
>>> Once you close the staging repo, people can add it to their local nexus
>> or settings.xml and fetch the under-vote 1.0.0 artifacts without building
>> them themselves.
>>> What am I missing?
>> Those extra steps, to either adjust settings.xml, or check out a tag
>> and build it, seem non-ideal to me. I'd argue a build should just
>> work, or that any extra steps (like adjusting settings.xml) should be
>> 'one-off', rather than constantly variable. It means when someone
>> wants to do a release, it creates a bit of inconvenience for everyone
>> else, which - imo - tends to drag us back to a 'release only when
>> absolutely necessary' model. After all, no one wants to be the person
>> who breaks the build, even if there are workarounds ...
>> We'd also need to add pre-build steps to Jenkins to populate the
>> repositories on the build machines, again increasing the complexity
>> and fragility of the automated build.
>> Cheers,
>> Holly
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>> I think this is sensible to do occasionally, but it's error prone and
>>>> makes more work for the release manager. Obviously, the big advantage
>>>> of it is that the release gets voted through over a period of a few
>>>> days, rather than a month or two, for a big release. :)
>>>> Holly
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Holly Cummins
>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Guillaume,
>>>>>> Thanks for your comments. Here are some of my thoughts ...
>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Guillaume Nodet <>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I think one problem, considering the current votes, is that it's
>>>>>>> really difficult to test anything.   Releasing api bundles with
>>>>>>> implementation to test is definitely not helping imo.
>>>>>> I know what you mean about the testing, and I'm not totally sure
>>>>>> the best answer is. I know what I'm releasing comes from trunk, and
>>>>>> being tested by the Jenkins builds, so I'm pretty confident it works
>>>>>> in a real system. However being tested in more environments and by
>>>>>> more systems is obviously a Good Thing.  I think the best way to
>>>>>> the API bundles is with the current -SNAPSHOT bundles of the
>>>>>> implementation, either in something like the blog sample or some
>>>>>> working system. If we weren't moving from 0.x to 1.0 you could also
>>>>>> test micro releases alongside existing impl bundles to ensure
>>>>>> everything resolves and works as claimed.
>>>>>>> Holly, just a question: is there a specific reason why are you
>>>>>>> the release in multiple votes ? It would be simpler to just release
>>>>>>> everything in one go and wait for a longer time because there
>> more
>>>>>>> things to check, or at least, release the api + implementation
>> that
>>>>>>> we can actually try something.  Just my 2 cents.
>>>>>> I agree that this sort of 'extended incremental' release is a bit
>>>>>> awkward, and I was wondering when someone would ask what on earth
>>>>>> was doing :). IMO it's the cleanest way to work with with
>>>>>> release-by-bundle (which I know you disagree with). If I release
>>>>>> everything in one go, there's a problem with the dependencies between
>>>>>> bundles. At the moment in trunk, almost every dependency is a SNAPSHOT
>>>>>> dependency. In the past we've updated all bundles to use non-SNAPSHOT
>>>>>> (but not yet released) versions in a branch, and I could even do
>>>>>> something similar without using a branch by briefly having the trunk
>>>>>> builds produce 1.0.0 artefacts. However, I think this creates a
>>>>>> greater burden for testers. If there are compilation-order
>>>>>> dependencies between parts of a release which don't share a top-level
>>>>>> pom, everyone verifying a script has to compile them in the right
>>>>>> order. I count 118 bundles to release, so that's a lot of bundles
>>>>>> get in the right order, and I didn't think any PMC member would want
>>>>>> to try. :) I guess this could be automated with a verification script
>>>>>> which either hardcodes or calculates the dependency graph, but it
>>>>>> seemed to me like more work for everyone and more risk for the
>>>>>> release. My hope was that if verifying individual mini-releases was
>>>>>> easy enough, doing multiple ones wouldn't be a problem (and in fact
>>>>>> would nicely distribute any effort, making it easier to vote).
>>>>>> I know at this stage some of you are thinking "and *this* is why
>>>>>> release by bundle is a bad idea!", and that's not really a debate
>>>>>> want to re-open. Among other things, I think any re-engineering of
>>>>>> poms at this stage will further delay the release.
>>>>>> The good news is I believe this problem will almost entirely go away
>>>>>> for 1.0.x and 1.x releases, because the impl bundle will, in most
>>>>>> cases, depend on an *already* released version of its API bundle
>>>>>> another Aries component. This means a bunch of related bundles could
>>>>>> be released at the same time, without compile issues, or a meaningful
>>>>>> release really could consist of just a single bundle. That's true
>>>>>> modularity and it should give both us and our users big benefits.
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Daniel Kulp <>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Honestly, with the change to using Nexus, the SHA1 and MD5
>> are
>>>>>>>> completely pointless.   Nexus generates them itself based
on what's
>>>>>>>> uploaded.  The "is it a valid signature" part of the GPG
testing is
>> also
>>>>>>>> pointless as Nexus won't let you close the repo unless the
>> signatures are
>>>>>>>> valid.   The only check you really need to do is to make
sure the
>> key that
>>>>>>>> was used is "trusted" by you.   (aka: was it really Holly
>> deployed those
>>>>>>>> artifacts)    So the monontonous parts of checking that stuff
>> really
>>>>>>>> irrelevant at this point.  (providing we trust that infra
has Nexus
>>>>>>>> sufficiently locked down and secure)
>>>>>>>> I actually don't have a big issue with the difficulting in
>> votes.
>>>>>>>> I'm involved in another community that has a PMC that is
easily 4
>> times the
>>>>>>>> size of this one, yet we still have difficulting getting
>> there.
>>>>>>>> While not ideal, life events can cause priority shifts and
such so
>> people
>>>>>>>> may not be able to be as responsive.
>>>>>>>> My bigger problem is that the entire per bundle release process
>> symantic
>>>>>>>> versioning crap has put a HUGE burden on the release manager.
>> That makes
>>>>>>>> it much harder to get quality releases out and makes it less
>> that
>>>>>>>> anyone will step up to get "minor fixes" released.   The
>> reason I
>>>>>>>> stepped up with the 0.3.1 bp stuff is that *MY*  customers
are being
>>>>>>>> affected by it.   Like wise for the proxy stuff.   If *my*
>> customers were
>>>>>>>> not affected, I don't think I would have spent the time and
>>   If
>>>>>>>> the process for getting fixes and releases out to users was
>> and
>>>>>>>> easier, I have no problem doing them.   For CXF, we do full
>> releases on 3
>>>>>>>> branches every other month or so.   But that's because it's
>> do.
>>>>>>>> If it was up to me, I'd toss out the entire versioning thing
>> 1.0 and go
>>>>>>>> back to per module versioning thing.   So my fix to proxy
>> have
>>>>>>>> involved checking out all of "proxy", fixing it, and releasing
>> of proxy
>>>>>>>> as a proxy "0.3.1", even the modules that haven't changed.
>> just a
>>>>>>>> huge hassle to track down which bundles have changed, which
>> which
>>>>>>>> version numbers need to be updated, etc....   If it's not
quick and
>> easy to
>>>>>>>> do releases as a release manager, very few people are going
to step
>> up to do
>>>>>>>> it.     It may not be 100% "proper OSGi", but IMO, getting
>> and such to
>>>>>>>> the users is more important than that.    But that's my opinion.
>>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 23, 2012 03:27:07 PM Holly Cummins wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>> Now that Jeremy's taken the time to write up our release
>> verification
>>>>>>>>> process, I'd like to propose we change it. :) I think
it's too
>> onerous
>>>>>>>>> on the pmc, which therefore also inhibits our ability
to be
>> responsive
>>>>>>>>> to our users.
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------- Why what we have isn't
working for
>> the
>>>>>>>>> community -------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> I believe our users would like more frequent releases.
We've had
>>>>>>>>> several keen requests and tweets and comments on the
>>>>>>>>> mailing list wishing we'd release more often. For example:
>>>>>>>>> * "Desperately waiting for an Aries release after loooong
>>>>>>>>> * "The problem with Aries is they seem to be too busy
coding to
>>>>>>>>> release anything."
>>>>>>>>> * "Compared to other projects (like Karaf and Camel)
Aries releases
>>>>>>>>> tend to take quite some time."
>>>>>>>>> * "It's 2012 now and Aries 0.3 is almost a year old.
Is there any
>>>>>>>>> chance of a new Aries JPA release any time soon? "
>>>>>>>>> * "Looks like Apache Aries has made no visible progress
since Jan
>>>>>>>>> 2011, if the time stamps on the maven central artefacts
are to be
>>>>>>>>> believed."
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------- Why what we have isn't
working for
>> us
>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> Both Dan and I are trying to do releases at the moment,
>> struggling
>>>>>>>>> to get enough PMC votes. Dan's release is to back port
>> show-stopper
>>>>>>>>> proxy fix, so a release there is particularly pressing
- he's got a
>>>>>>>>> non-binding +infinity vote, but that's all. My test support
>>>>>>>>> vote has been open for about 64 hours, and only got one
vote so far
>>>>>>>>> (thanks David B!). Obviously testsupport is less exciting
>> proxy,
>>>>>>>>> but that bundle does block more interesting releases.
>>>>>>>>> Why aren't people voting? My guess is that it's too much
work to do
>>>>>>>>> the full set of verifications described at
>> are
>>>>>>>>> seven steps, and while they don't actually take that
long to
>> complete,
>>>>>>>>> it's enough of a burden that we tend to leave the voting
to someone
>>>>>>>>> else unless we really care about a release. I'm as guilty
of this
>> as
>>>>>>>>> anyone - I think a release is a good idea, but I'm spending
>>>>>>>>> time working on the 1.0.0 release that I don't want to
take time
>> out
>>>>>>>>> to vote on another release. I suspect Dan might feel
exactly the
>> same
>>>>>>>>> about my 1.0.0 bundles. :)
>>>>>>>>> With release-by-bundle, there's a lot of verifications.
>> the
>>>>>>>>> sandbox code, we have 123 bundles to release in 1.0.0.
At three
>> votes
>>>>>>>>> per bundle, that means the PMC need to do 369 MD5 checks,
369 PGP
>>>>>>>>> checks, 369 RAT checks, and so on, just to get 1.0.0
out the door.
>>>>>>>>> This just doesn't seem like it scales. Batching the bundle
>>>>>>>>> together eases some of this burden, but not all.
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------- What I propose
>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> I suggest we move to a more trust-based system, where
PMC members
>>>>>>>>> carefully check releases if they want, but where in general
>>>>>>>>> voting on the principle of the release, rather than the
>> of
>>>>>>>>> the archives. In particular, they don't feel compelled
to do checks
>>>>>>>>> before voting. If PMC members could say "Our users need
>> function,
>>>>>>>>> so +1", or "I know Holly has done sensible things in
the past, so
>> +1"
>>>>>>>>> or even "Do I want to check the SHAs on a test support
>> Really?
>>>>>>>>> +1" it would get our releases moving better, and also
save work for
>>>>>>>>> all of us.
>>>>>>>>> (At the moment I think what's happening is people are
thinking "Do
>> I
>>>>>>>>> want to check the SHAs on a test support bundle? Really?"
and then
>>>>>>>>> skipping the +1 bit. :)  )
>>>>>>>>> To ensure that at least *someone* has run the checks,
the release
>>>>>>>>> manager could include the output of the seven checks
in an email to
>>>>>>>>> the list. I think this level of checking is perfectly
>> with
>>>>>>>>> the minimum Apache process, which is that the release
manager signs
>>>>>>>>> the artefacts and three PMC members vote +1
>>>>>>>>> (
>>>>>>>>> What do people think?
>>>>>>>>> Holly
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Daniel Kulp
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> Talend Community Coder -
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>> Blog:
>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>> FuseSource, Integration everywhere
>>>>> --
>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>> Blog:
>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>> FuseSource, Integration everywhere
> -- 
> ------------------------
> Guillaume Nodet
> ------------------------
> Blog:
> ------------------------
> FuseSource, Integration everywhere

View raw message