commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles <>
Subject [ALL] Valid reasons for blocking a release? (Was: [REMINDER][VOTE][RC1] Release Commons Rng 1.0)
Date Thu, 15 Sep 2016 11:02:43 GMT
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 07:41:01 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
> "I'd rather not redo the release steps just for files that are
> meaningful only when browsing the code repository mirror at
> Github."
> I know our release process is a pain, so maybe we should see if we 
> can
> improve it. This needs a separate thread.

I'm not the one who complains regularly that the release process
is a "nightmare".
It was when I did RM CM some years ago and found that some of the
instructions just did not work.  And that what worked either was
not mentioned (only those who "knew" could RM) or was the second
or third alternative way.

For newbies (and everyone else from your own words), that was
indeed the nightmare.

I thus initiated a single-step-by-single-step "howto" for CM that
did work.
And that should have been updated whenever something had to change
to make a release successful.

Who decided that "" and "" _had_ to be part
of the distribution files?

Did we vote on that?

> It's rare to release without more than one RC.

You'd have to wonder why.
"Our release process is a nightmare" is not an answer to that question.

That the instructions which many RM follow are so poor that a single
RC is rare is no reason to infer that any release should suffer from
the same bias.

> It looks pretty lame IMO if the first thing you see, our site or 
> github, is
> wrong or missing info. It could make one wonder about overall 
> attention to
> detail...

Nothing _looks_ lame.

The files are there, to fill their role on Github and on Apache!

Stian just noticed that they were missing from the distribution
files, and in _that_ context (e.g. someone who want to compile
from source), they do not have any purpose.

Please check your facts before using such a word: I can happily
take that I'm not an expert on random number generators but not
so happily that I don't pay attention to the detail.

I will prepare RC2, but I find it totally disproportionate, as
there was strictly no reason to do it.


> Gary
> On Sep 14, 2016 7:32 AM, "Gilles" <> 
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 14:53:29 +0100, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>> On 14 September 2016 at 10:14, Gilles 
>>> <>
>>> wrote:
>>>> This is a [VOTE] for releasing Apache Commons Rng 1.0 (from RC1).
>>>> Commit ID the tag points at:
>>>>   f8d23082607b9f2c7be7f489eb09627722440ee5
>>> Thanks, Gilles!
>>> I'm afraid my vote is: -0 as the source zip is missing 
>>> and
>>> and the site is not updated.
>> The site can, and will be fixed, "live" (as it must be done anyway 
>> for
>> the link to the Javadoc, see below).
>> Everything else looks
>>> good though!
>>> Checked:
>>> +1 checksums
>>> +1 signatures
>>> +1 source zip vs tar.gz
>>> +1 binaries zip vs tar.gz
>>> +1 mvn apache-rat:check (if using ignores from <reporting>)
>> I don't understand the "if" clause.
>> Report is clean when generated as part of "mvn site".
>> +1 maven repo matches source (on -src.tar,
>>> +1 mvn clean install
>>> +1 javadoc
>>> +1 RELEASE-NOTES  (Should it mention that this was in math before?)
>> No point IMHO.
>> There isn't a single file that was not significantly changed
>> and most are new.
>> It was developed within the CM repository but the code was never
>> released as part of CM.
>> -1 git tag vs source zip
>>>    source zip is missing and (and doc, 
>>> which
>>> I think it's correct to exclude)
>>> -1 binaries vs source
>>>     binaries zip is missing and (and doc,
>>> which I think it's correct to exclude)
>> Are those a mandatory part of the distribution?
>> Commons Math was never released with those files.
>> I'd rather not redo the release steps just for files that are
>> meaningful only when browsing the code repository mirror at
>> Github.
>> -1 README missing from both source and bniaries
>>> -1 site stlil says "There isn't any release yet" etc on front page.
>> This was noticed by Gary.
>> The site is not part of the release and can be fixed anytime (which
>> I'll do before the announcement).
>> "Javadoc 1.0" link in menu is broken.
>> That is always the case; it is also to be fixed when the files are
>> in their proper place (i.e. not in the RM's "~/public_html").
>> Regards,
>> Gilles
>> Tested with
>>> $ mvn -v
>>> Apache Maven 3.3.9 (bb52d8502b132ec0a5a3f4c09453c07478323dc5;
>>> 2015-11-10T16:41:47+00:00)
>>> Maven home: /home/stain/software/maven
>>> Java version: 1.8.0_91, vendor: Oracle Corporation
>>> Java home: /usr/lib/jvm/java-8-openjdk-amd64/jre
>>> Default locale: en_GB, platform encoding: UTF-8
>>> OS name: "linux", version: "4.4.0-36-generic", arch: "amd64", 
>>> family:
>>> "unix"
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message