Keep in mind the first Apache release is the hardest.   It gets a lot
easier from here.


On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Henry Saputra <[email protected]>wrote:

> Thanks guys, I guess we could continue with release VOTE using the staging
> repo.
>
> I have set the svn pub sub for MetaModel to push our release artifacts
> later to the dist location.
>
> Ankit, as the RE for this release, can resend the [VOTE] thread with
> RC files in the staging area.
>
>
> - Henry
>
> On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Matt Franklin <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Kasper Sørensen <
> > [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Recent vote of the release didn't go too well because of variying
> opinions
> >> on where the release candidate artifacts should be provided. With this
> >> discussion I want to get an impression of what people need when they
> review
> >> a release, and what this means for the requirements and wishes of the
> >> actual release artifact location.
> >>
> >> It seems the norm in Apache projects is that artifacts are manually
> >> uploaded by the Release Engineer to somewhere in his personal
> >> people.apache.org web space. So some people prefer this approach. The
> >> upside here is that the release engineer can arrange the location so
> that
> >> it is as humanly consumable as possible. (Proponents of this approach
> may
> >> add more upsides that I may not know about.)
> >>
> >
> > Uploading to people.apache.org is actually an older practice that has
> been
> > deprecated. There is now a SVN Pub/Sub system with a staging and dist
> > section that we can ask INFRA to configure for us.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> However, we're using Maven for the release packaging, signing and
> >> verification, and uploading to a Maven staging repository on
> >> repository.apache.org. This means that we can automize the upload
> >> completely by the existing Maven release process. The location that the
> >> Release Engineer would publish would ultimately be a small Maven
> >> repository. This has the advantage that if you want to review a release
> >> candidate from the perspective of an existing project that is depending
> on
> >> MetaModel, you could simply consume the repository in your project and
> >> update your dependency version number. That way you could use the
> release
> >> candidate with very few changes and be able to build, test and run other
> >> projects that depend on it. It also means that the location of the
> release
> >> candidate artifacts is not on people.apache.org, and that for instance
> the
> >> source zip file will not be in the root of the upload location, but in:
> >>
> >>
> [root]/org/apache/metamodel/MetaModel/[version]/MetaModel-[version]-source-release.zip.
> >> That location is obviously less easily accessible if you just get the
> >> repository URL.
> >>
> >
> > We should deploy to repository.apache.org.  It ensures are artifacts are
> > synced to Maven central.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> My opinion:
> >> I like the automatic Maven repository and don't see the point (yet?) in
> why
> >> it has to be on people.apache.org. That said, I do think the vote email
> >> should contain not just one link to the repository, but also a link
> >> specifically to the source zip. That way the complication of finding the
> >> source zip is overcome for people less accustomed to Maven's repository
> >> layout.
> >>
> >
> > Bottom line is that it doesn't really matter where the release artifacts
> > are staged; but, the release process MUST comply with the following:
> >
> > 1) Produce a binary-free source package that is the "release" that is
> voted
> > on
> > 2) Comply with all LICENSE & NOTICE constraints (including ensuring
> > compatible licensing on source inclusions)
> > 3) Reside on dist.apache.org.  By policy, a release must be accessible
> > through https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/metamodel/
> >
> > A release MAY:
> >
> > 1) Deploy to maven central via repository.apache.org
> > 2) Build "convenience" binaries that include 3rd party dependencies and
> > host these in dist
> >
> >
> > Hope this clears things up.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Kasper
> >>
>

Reply via email to