If the revision number is not given, the script should at least check that all revision numbers in the JARs/WARs are identical. By this you can prevent bugs because somebody did not correctly do "ant clean" and only partially built the jars.
----- Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Rowe [mailto:sar...@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 8:43 AM > To: dev@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr 4.3 RC1 > > On Apr 19, 2013, at 6:44 PM, Michael McCandless > <luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Chris Hostetter > > <hossman_luc...@fucit.org> wrote: > >> > >> : OK I think a WARNING in smokeTester makes sense ... > >> : > >> : But as Hoss said ... figuring out the release branch from > >> smokeTester > >> : ... isn't easy. Hmm. > >> > >> At a certain point, too much automation is "too much". I already > >> think the snoke tester is too complicated -- what tests the tester? > >> > >> It's great to automate any sanity checks thta can be reliably > >> automated, but we have to remeber that each of us has to take > >> resonsibiliity for hte fact that we are *personally* voting for hte > >> release, and the smoke test scripts are just tools to help save us > >> time doing verifying trivial things. We still need to be concious of > >> what exactly is in the release, and wether it works, and wether the > >> smoke testers "SUCCESS" was really a false positive, etc... > >> > >> "smokeTestRelease.py don't vote to release; People vote to release." > > > > Yeah I agree ... I think we should leave this out of the snoke tester. > > > > buildAndPushRelease already svn ups for you … > > But not every RM will use that. > > I think another smoke test might be useful: compare the claimed svn revision > against the revision in the manifest of each archive to be released, e.g. from > the RC2 lucene-core-4.3.0.jar: > > Implementation-Version: 4.3.0 1470054 - simonw - 2013-04-19 23:43:33 > > We would have to supply the revision on the cmdline to the smoke tester, > for the case when the revision is not included in the base URL, and the RM > would have to supply this info in the VOTE thread. Supplying an RC's source > is a good idea anyway: "here's an RC, it's built from svn rXXXXXXX" (no need > to supply rel branch since this is established convention). RMs can easily > get > this by running "svn info" from where they build the release. > > About automation: Yes, things slip through the cracks. So we learn and add > more checks. Not continuing this process is IMHO a mistake. > > Steve > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional > commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
