Ok, that makes perfect sense. Thanks! Joel Bernstein http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 6:05 PM, jim ferenczi <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok sorry I should have been more specific. The backcompat tests are not > created on the release branch for the first minor release (eg. 6.5.0). They > are only created for the master branch and the 6x branch. Then during the > first bugfix of the current release branch (eg. 6.5.1) we push the > backcompat test directly on the release branch. This is not done before > because we cannot test the backcompatibitily of the 6.5.0 branch with > itself. > > 2017-04-09 22:57 GMT+02:00 Joel Bernstein <[email protected]>: > >> Thanks Jim, I don't quite understand the rational for when the backcompat >> indexes are created, but that's OK. I'll create a new RC this evening. >> >> Joel Bernstein >> http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/ >> >> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 4:44 PM, jim ferenczi <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Joel, >>> The backcompat indexes are not added for a minor release. They are added >>> on the first bugfix release on the minor branch. There is a note in the >>> TODO: >>> "*Make sure that the backcompat index for the previous release has been >>> added to the release branch. (Note that this will ordinarily not have been >>> done if the current release is X.Y.1, i.e. the first bugfix release off the >>> stable branch.) See the post-release section "Generate Backcompat Indexes" >>> below - remember you'll be generating an index for the previous release.* >>> " >>> >>> I just pushed the backcompat indices in the release branch. You'll need >>> to generate a new release candidate though. >>> >>> 2017-04-09 3:15 GMT+02:00 Ishan Chattopadhyaya < >>> [email protected]>: >>> >>>> No, this has not changed. I think backcompat indexes for the previous >>>> release was not added. The 6.5.0 's RM might've missed this step. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 4:45 AM, Joel Bernstein <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Looks like I need to add the back compat indexes. In the releaseTodo >>>>> this is post release activity but it looks that has changed. >>>>> >>>>> Joel Bernstein >>>>> http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/ >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Joel Bernstein <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I don't believe I've missed any steps listed: >>>>>> https://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseTodo >>>>>> >>>>>> Joel Bernstein >>>>>> http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/ >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Joel Bernstein <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Ok, the keys appear to be sorted out now. Smoke test now gets much >>>>>>> further but fails with the error below. I'll go back see if I've missed >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> step... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Releases that don't seem to be tested: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 6.5.0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Traceback (most recent call last): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1476, in >>>>>>> <module> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> main() >>>>>>> >>>>>>> File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1420, in main >>>>>>> >>>>>>> smokeTest(c.java, c.url, c.revision, c.version, c.tmp_dir, >>>>>>> c.is_signed, ' '.join(c.test_args)) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1458, in >>>>>>> smokeTest >>>>>>> >>>>>>> unpackAndVerify(java, 'lucene', tmpDir, 'lucene-%s-src.tgz' % >>>>>>> version, gitRevision, version, testArgs, baseURL) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 622, in >>>>>>> unpackAndVerify >>>>>>> >>>>>>> verifyUnpacked(java, project, artifact, unpackPath, gitRevision, >>>>>>> version, testArgs, tmpDir, baseURL) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 768, in >>>>>>> verifyUnpacked >>>>>>> >>>>>>> confirmAllReleasesAreTestedForBackCompat(version, unpackPath) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1396, in >>>>>>> confirmAllReleasesAreTestedForBackCompat >>>>>>> >>>>>>> raise RuntimeError('some releases are not tested by >>>>>>> TestBackwardsCompatibility?') >>>>>>> >>>>>>> RuntimeError: some releases are not tested by >>>>>>> TestBackwardsCompatibility? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Joel Bernstein >>>>>>> http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Joel Bernstein <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My key has appeared: http://home.apache.org/keys/group/lucene.asc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'll work on an RC this evening. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Joel Bernstein >>>>>>>> http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Joel Bernstein <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ok, I've added the PGP fingerprint to my account on id.apache.org. >>>>>>>>> I'll wait until step #1 completes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then I'll populate the three key files mentioned in Ishan's notes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then I'll regenerate the RC. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Joel Bernstein >>>>>>>>> http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Joel Bernstein <[email protected] >>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I need to get me public key into my profile on id.apache.org. >>>>>>>>>> I'll work on that first. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Joel Bernstein >>>>>>>>>> http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Steve Rowe <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Joel, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > On Apr 7, 2017, at 4:36 PM, Steve Rowe <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > a key generated with gpg2 won’t be visible to gpg. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Lower-impact fix (maybe) than symlinking - this will make your >>>>>>>>>>> public key visible to ‘gpg’: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> $ gpg --recv-key EE64CB1E >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Steve >>>>>>>>>>> www.lucidworks.com >>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>> --------- >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
