freemarker-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Dekany <ddek...@freemail.hu>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release FreeMarker 2.3.24-rc01-incubating
Date Thu, 07 Jan 2016 15:05:59 GMT
Thursday, January 7, 2016, 1:27:55 PM, John D. Ament wrote:

> Hi,
>
> One other request.  Right now it looks like you're creating two source
> releases.  I think ideally each source release would be voted on separately
> (since fundamentally they're two different artifacts).  If you got to a
> point where there could be a single source release that would be great, but
> from looking at your architecture and branching process I don't think
> that's possible.

Can we in practice vote for both at once? These are just variations
targeting different platforms, because of a silly incompatibility
issue with GAE. The source differences are small. If one passes, then
the other will too. And Java doesn't have #define and such to
conveniently cover that from the same source tree.

BTW 2.4 would get rid of this duality, but 2.4 have just never
happened, as pretty much everything that matters for users were either
"forced" into 2.3.x instead, and now was postponed until the
hypothetical 3.0, where it's less expensive to add them...

> In addition, what some people do is push the release tags to a personal
> repo (e.g. hosted on github) and vote off of that commit.  Alternatively,
> there's nothing stopping you from creating a release branch in the ASF git
> repo and pushing to that to do the vote.

My plan was/is that the current branch heads will branch of to
2.3.24-stabilization and 2.3.24-gae-stabilization. The reason it
haven't happened yet is that all commits so far was about
stabilization, not future features.

> John
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:20 AM Daniel Dekany <ddekany@freemail.hu> wrote:
>
>> Thursday, January 7, 2016, 9:35:08 AM, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I guess the timing picked is not the best for having more people on
>> > board...
>>
>> Yeah, but it was simply when the code was ready.
>>
>> > BTW, the release manager can also vote a release.
>>
>> When he knows what's he doing... :)
>>
>> > So far I've successfully checked in the source release:
>> >
>> > * signatures and digests
>> > * incubator suffix and disclaimer
>> > * build sources in a clean environment (oracle java
>> > 8u66+8u65arm-1~webupd8~1 on debian 64bits).
>> >
>> > Some comments:
>> >
>> > * Release is not tagged in git tags, and vote mail does not contain
>> commit id to check.
>>
>> Indeed, the commit ID was missing.
>>
>> As of tagging, I used to do that when the commit has actually made it
>> to become a public release, because tags are public. Is that good that
>> way?
>>
>> > * There is a URL to the maven staging area.
>>
>> You wanted to write that there's *no* URL? (We had no Maven access yet
>> when it was done.)
>>
>> > * KEYS file contains only one public gpg, the one from the release
>> > manager for this release candidate, formally that's fine. Please,
>> > all other committers should add theirs keys there too for preparing
>> > for next releases (in case someone else jumps in the release manager
>> role).
>> >
>> > * Tarballs contain wrong source layout, the root directory contains
>> > no version details (apache-freemaker-src and
>> > apache-freemarker-gae-src respectively).
>>
>> OK. (The misinformation came from
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html: "For
>> project, Apache Foo (say) with source and binary types, it is
>> conventional for the main binary to unpack to apache-foo and the
>> source to apache-foo-src.".)
>>
>> > * The section about the "files developed outside the FreeMarker
>> > project" in the LICENSE file should actually go in the NOTICE,
>> > specifying details there. I'd say the path should be full from the
>> > root of the sources: src/main/resources/freemarker/ext/...
>>
>> I did these.
>>
>> I wonder, since the owner of FreeMarker is now the ASF, do we still
>> need to add notices for those DTD-s that are also Apache products
>> (though from a different project)?
>>
>> > * Also I'd move the "Historical notes" to the README.
>>
>> I have instead deleted them, if that's fine. I don't think they are
>> useful enough (or well visible for lawyer-types) to be in the README.
>> There's a page about the project history on the web site which covers
>> this topic.
>>
>> > * Source tree contains some JARs at
>> > src/test/resources/freemarker/ext/jsp/webapps/ that shoudl be noticed in
>> NOTICE
>>
>> Added them, also the OpenOffice files. These are all produced by the
>> FreeMarker project BTW.
>>
>> > Because that, I have to vote -1 for releasing FreeMarker
>> > 2.3.24-rc01-incubating.
>>
>> Thanks for your remarks, I will soon come up with a new attempt to
>> vote on!
>>
>> > First ASF release is very important for every project, so all the
>> > work done now will make much easier next ones.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Daniel Dekany <ddekany@freemail.hu>
>> wrote:
>> > I have updated
>> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/freemarker/ so that
>> > the tar.gz-s has a top-level apache-freemarker ro
>> > apache-freemarker-src directory in them. Nothing else has been
>> > changed.
>> >
>> >
>> > Sunday, January 3, 2016, 1:44:17 AM, Daniel Dekany wrote:
>> >
>> >> Dear Mentors, and everyone else!
>> >>
>> >> As it turns out, this Release Candidate will go through the same
>> >> procedure as a stable release would (2 round of voting, etc.), because
>> >> (or, if?) we want to publish it on the home page for a month before
>> >> the final release, giving people time for testing, which legally makes
>> >> it to a "real" release.
>> >>
>> >> To everyone, if you can, please test this release with your own
>> >> FreeMarker-dependent projects (like OFBiz), and in general try to find
>> >> rough edges, tell your insights. Here's the binary with full
>> >> documentation and change log:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/freemarker/engine/2.3.24-rc01-incubating/binaries/apache-freemarker-2.3.24-rc01-incubating-bin.tar.gz
>> >>
>> >> Dear Mentors, please check if this complies with the ASF policies,
>> >> etc., then vote! Also check if you agree with this dist directory
>> >> structure (this will be our first ASF release):
>> >>
>> >>   https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/freemarker/
>> >>
>> >> Notes:
>> >>
>> >> - "gae" is the Google App Engine compliant variant. Most users can just
>> >>   ignore it.
>> >>
>> >> - See the README for the build instructions.
>> >>
>> >> - We aren't yet in the Apache Maven repo - I will soon ask Infra to
>> >>   set things up. Note that this RC will only go to the staging repo even
>> >>   then, as otherwise it would be synced with the Central (right?).
>> >>
>> >> - You can run `ant rat`. If you extract the two distributions (I mean
>> >>   the binary and source archives) under build/dist/bin and
>> >>   build/dist/src, it will also check those. (Or if you ran `ant dist`
>> >>   earlier.)
>> >>
>> >> The vote is open for 72 hours, or until the necessary number of
>> >> binding votes (3 +1) is reached.
>> >>
>> >>     [ ] +1 Release this package
>> >>     [ ]  0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with the release
>> >>     [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>> >>
>> >> If this vote passes, we will start a 2nd vote at general@incubator.
>> >>
>> >
>> > --
>> > Thanks,
>> >  Daniel Dekany
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>>  Daniel Dekany
>>
>>

-- 
Thanks,
 Daniel Dekany


Mime
View raw message