Yep, thanks again Lucas for that contribution (https://github.com/apache/activemq-website/pull/39). I was going to bring more attention to it here myself once I had related changes for adding a new Artemis release, which I now have.
As a summary, to add a new broker release you will now create a collections file containing a few details, and then possibly update the 'current releases' prefix config in the Jekyll config file if the current release stream(s) changed. Jekyll will then generate the download page (+release page for 5.x), past releases etc details based on those. For example, creating this 5.16.1 release file and setting the related config values as follows: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/apache/activemq-website/7a8bdde040886f1150ec753dea344090135fce73/src/_5x_releases/activemq-5016001-release.md https://github.com/apache/activemq-website/blob/7a8bdde040886f1150ec753dea344090135fce73/_config.yml#L24-L26 Yields the following download and release pages (and adds a link to it from the past releases page): http://activemq.apache.org/components/classic/download/ http://activemq.apache.org/activemq-5016001-release Similarly for Artemis, creating this 2.16.0 release file and setting the related config value as follows: https://github.com/apache/activemq-website/blob/7a8bdde040886f1150ec753dea344090135fce73/src/_artemis_releases/artemis-02-16-00-release.md https://github.com/apache/activemq-website/blob/7a8bdde040886f1150ec753dea344090135fce73/_config.yml#L22-L23 Yields the download page, past releases page, and previous-docs pages being updated as follows: http://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/ http://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/download/past_releases http://activemq.apache.org/components/artemis/documentation/previous_docs (this one is normally reached within an iframe) You'll note the output largely seems the same as before, since it mostly is. Its just that now much of it is generated at build time from the metadata files, rather than by manually creating/updating the final pages directly. The release instructions for both brokers have been updated to reflect the new simpler process for adding a release. Robbie On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 03:07, Tetreault, Lucas <tetlu...@amazon.com.invalid> wrote: > > Hey folks, > > I'm late to the party but thought I would add my thanks for the work JB has > done with the recent releases even if there have been some slip ups. > > For what it's worth, I noticed the process to update the website required > updates in a handful of places and looked pretty error prone so I submitted a > PR (thanks Robbie for getting it merged) that I think will really streamline > at least that part of the process __ Maybe some of the rest of the post-vote > process can be automated as well! I'll connect with JB offline to see how I > can help. > > Thanks, > > Lucas Tétreault > > On 2021-02-05, 10:14 AM, "Jean-Baptiste Onofre" <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not > click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know > the content is safe. > > > > OK, ack. > > No more comment about that from my side. > > I will keep your comments in mind. > > Anyway, I will move forward on my actions and release cycle for the good > of the project ;) > > > Le 5 févr. 2021 à 18:52, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > > > > On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 at 16:21, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Chris, > >> > >> I take the fault, no worries. I did the release, but I was swamped > with bunch of things and not completed cleanly. > >> > > > > In general I have no issue with that, things clearly come up. > > > > Some things can be prioritised though, e.g completing the > > delayed/outstanding release process before starting and participating > > in new discussion about doing more frequent releases as happened. > > > >> I will fix that. > >> > >> I think I know well enough the Apache release process on different > Apache projects (I can’t count the number of releases I did and still doing) > to know that I did bad on the last ActiveMQ one. > >> I would like to remind that it’s the first time I messed with the > announcement, and I will fix that. > > > > I have actually raised this on multiple previous occasions, and there > > have been further occasions inbetween where I haven't. > > > >> > >> So, sorry about that and, again I will fix that. > >> If you wanna help, you are welcome. > > > > I would agree with Chris that it is preferable or at least typical > > that one person completes the process, it's generally far simpler. > > That said folks can certainly agree with others to coordinate on > > things if needed though. Typically thats done beforehand, or at least > > in a timely fashion if unexpected things comes up. > > > > If you dont arrange things with others and/or send mails indicating > > you are going to do it, people are generally not going to expect they > > are needed to assist with the relatively simple final tasks of the > > release, or wont do it to avoid stepping on the original persons toes. > > If you instead need help, ask for that rather than reassuing you are > > doing it, which likely only delays things further. > > > > I did update the website for 5.16.1 despite this thread last week > > though, once I had realised it still wasnt on the site after a week > > but a CVE announcement relating to it had already been made since. > > With announcements especially though, its awkward to just step in and > > do it, as you ought to coordinate first that the original person isnt > > also doing it at the same time, and knows not to repeat it later etc, > > plus again you had repeated you were doing it, and so I just noted I > > was leaving that. > > > >> > >> On Apache projects, when I see people having issue (time, personal, > …), I propose my help. That’s the way it works IMHO. > >> > >> Regards > >> JB > >> > >>> Le 5 févr. 2021 à 17:12, Christopher Shannon > <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> a écrit : > >>> > >>> With the discussion of trying to do quarterly releases and keep to a > >>> schedule I am going to chime in here and bring up the fact that I > think > >>> that going forward as a project we need to do a much better job at > >>> completing the release process. Recently it seems that most releases > are > >>> vastly delayed in having emails sent and the website updated, etc. > I've > >>> done a ton of releases for 5.x and I know it's a bit of extra work to > do > >>> things like update the site, CVE announcements, release > announcements, etc > >>> but it's all part of doing a release. The process doesn't end when > the vote > >>> ends and the artifacts are uploaded. > >>> > >>> Obviously doing a release is voluntary and no one is obligated to do > one > >>> (but it is appreciated of course). However, that being said, my > opinion is > >>> if someone chooses to take on the task of doing a release and be the > >>> release manager for it they need to complete the entire process in a > timely > >>> manner and not let it drag on for days and weeks. > >>> > >>> Chris > >>> > >>> On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 10:54 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre > <j...@nanthrax.net> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> Let me check (I did it but maybe forgot to send ;)). > >>>> > >>>> I will fix that if it didn’t go. > >>>> > >>>> Regards > >>>> JB > >>>> > >>>>> Le 5 févr. 2021 à 16:46, Timothy Bish <tabish...@gmail.com> a écrit > : > >>>>> > >>>>> Did I miss the announcement going out? Seems like it should have > been > >>>> done > >>>>> by now but I don't see it, although website appears to but updated > now. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 8:44 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre > <j...@nanthrax.net> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks Robbie, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I was about to update website. Thanks for catching this ! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I will move forward on announcement. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Regards > >>>>>> JB > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Le 29 janv. 2021 à 14:38, Robbie Gemmell > <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> a > >>>>>> écrit : > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I have just updated the website to change the download page to > 5.16.1, > >>>>>>> add the 5.16.1 release page (which notes the announced CVE Gary > >>>>>>> already updated the site with), and fix the broken links for the > >>>>>>> 5.16.0 page. The site should be updated before the prior release > is > >>>>>>> removed from mirrors, or it breaks the links. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I leave any further tweaks and announcements needed to you. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 at 05:00, Jean-Baptiste Onofre > <j...@nanthrax.net> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi guys, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sorry, I’m late about website update, announcement and CVE > publication > >>>>>> for ActiveMQ 5.16.1. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I will fix that asap (at least during the week end). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sorry about that, > >>>>>>>> Regards > >>>>>>>> JB > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Tim Bish > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >
