Ok, How about doing something like this:
$ find . \ -name m2-repository -not -path "*openjpa-project*" -exec mvn -f /tmp/maven-stage-plugin/pom.xml stage:copy -Dsource=file://{} -Dtarget=scp://people.apache.org/home/pcl/release-candidate/1.0.0/ repo/m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository \ -Dversion=1.0.1 \;
Then we can look at what you will do after the vote completes and argue about whether the artifacts are correct.
Craig On May 15, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
What we need to vote on are the (reproducible) release artifacts: the source and binary distributions with asc and md5 sig/ checksums; and the maven artifacts that will go into the mirrored maven repository.Sadly, our process does not seem to support generating such an artifact.Then how will the maven artifacts get published?I do not understand what you mean by "reproducible";Reinforcing that you should be able to create the same artifacts by running the scripts again. No manual to-and-fro should be involved.From [1], the last step in the release process is:$ find . \ -name m2-repository -not -path "*openjpa-project*" -exec mvn -f /tmp/maven-stage-plugin/pom.xml stage:copy -Dsource=file://{} -Dtarget=scp://people.apache.org/www/people.apache.org/repo/m2- ibiblio-rsync-repository \ -Dversion=1.0.1 \;My understanding is that once that script is run, the contents are uploaded to the non-snapshot mvn repository. I.e., if I were to run that script, things would be released to the wild. That sounds to me like something that should happen only once the release is approved, and not before.So, in other words, the semi-automatic process documented at [1] takes the output that I've linked to and pushes it to the mvn repo directly.As I pointed out, I think that there is room for improving this process. I would rather, however, cut out the mvn artifacts from the 1.1.0 release than spend the next days rushing through trying to learn about mvn's world view when it comes to further mvn automation.this was all generated in exactly the same manner as prior (approved) OpenJPA releases, with the exception that we're now generating md5 and asc files for more of the artifacts.And we have had problems with subsequent maven artifact postings, which I want to fix by having more oversight earlier.It was my understanding that the only issue that we've encountered in the previous releases was the lack of signed artifacts. I believe that the work that I've done addresses that. As I mentioned above, since our process deploys directly to the mvn repo, I know of no way to validate that that's the case. Further, I am not scared of directly (manually) updating the mvn repo; I was under the impression that it was the artifacts, and not the process, that needed voting / approval.I see lots of m2-repository contents that would seem to conform to what maven expects, but I'm no maven expert:http://openjpa.apache.org/builds/1.1.0/apache-openjpa/m2-repository/org/apache/openjpa/apache-openjpa/1.1.0/These directories are not proper maven repositories, so a subset of these artifacts then need to be copied to completely different directories. How will this be done? Why can't they be copied "now" to a temporary maven repo so they can be vetted?I have no idea what "proper maven repositories" look like.How about this: let's get rid of all the mvn artifacts from the 1.1.0 release, and focus instead just on the binary and source zips.-Patrick [1] http://openjpa.apache.org/releasing-openjpa.html On May 15, 2008, at 12:04 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:Hi Patrick, On May 15, 2008, at 11:52 AM, Patrick Linskey wrote:What we need to vote on are the (reproducible) release artifacts: the source and binary distributions with asc and md5 sig/ checksums; and the maven artifacts that will go into the mirrored maven repository.Sadly, our process does not seem to support generating such an artifact.Then how will the maven artifacts get published?I do not understand what you mean by "reproducible";Reinforcing that you should be able to create the same artifacts by running the scripts again. No manual to-and-fro should be involved.this was all generated in exactly the same manner as prior (approved) OpenJPA releases, with the exception that we're now generating md5 and asc files for more of the artifacts.And we have had problems with subsequent maven artifact postings, which I want to fix by having more oversight earlier.I see lots of m2-repository contents that would seem to conform to what maven expects, but I'm no maven expert:http://openjpa.apache.org/builds/1.1.0/apache-openjpa/m2-repository/org/apache/openjpa/apache-openjpa/1.1.0/These directories are not proper maven repositories, so a subset of these artifacts then need to be copied to completely different directories. How will this be done? Why can't they be copied "now" to a temporary maven repo so they can be vetted?Craighttp://openjpa.apache.org/builds/1.1.0/openjpa-examples/m2-repository/org/apache/openjpa/openjpa-examples/1.1.0/ http://openjpa.apache.org/builds/1.1.0/openjpa-jdbc/m2-repository/org/apache/openjpa/openjpa-jdbc/1.1.0/ http://openjpa.apache.org/builds/1.1.0/openjpa-kernel/m2-repository/org/apache/openjpa/openjpa-kernel/1.1.0/ http://openjpa.apache.org/builds/1.1.0/openjpa-lib/m2-repository/org/apache/openjpa/openjpa-lib/1.1.0/ http://openjpa.apache.org/builds/1.1.0/openjpa-persistence-jdbc/m2-repository/org/apache/openjpa/openjpa-jdbc/1.1.0/ http://openjpa.apache.org/builds/1.1.0/openjpa-persistence/m2-repository/org/apache/openjpa/openjpa-persistence/1.1.0/ http://openjpa.apache.org/builds/1.1.0/openjpa-slice/m2-repository/org/apache/openjpa/openjpa-slice/1.1.0/ http://openjpa.apache.org/builds/1.1.0/openjpa-xmlstore/m2-repository/org/apache/openjpa/openjpa-xmlstore/1.1.0/ Does this help? -Patrick On May 15, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:Hi Patrick, On May 15, 2008, at 10:10 AM, Patrick Linskey wrote:Hi,Nice job, but need a bit more to review.Thanks! I'm assuming that you mean that you can't vote +1 now, but that you'll have time between now and Monday evening, right?Right.There's a requirement that all artifacts have an md5 checksum in addition to the asc signature.Those should all be generated. In fact, it looks like we even have md5 checksums of the signatures!In the link you sent outthere are only the source and binary distribution files with asc sigs, no md5 and no maven artifacts.A candidate build for OpenJPA 1.1.0 is available at: http://openjpa.apache.org/builds/1.1.0/downloads/Since we plan to put the jar files into the global maven repo, the artifacts should be on the download site for review. The jar files also need md5 and asc signatures.Everything can be found at people.apache.org/www/ openjpa.apache.org/builds/1.1.0.Everything including the kitchen sink. But there are many files and plain junk in that location that it's impossible for me to review.Also, I think it's worth noting that there are definite improvements that we could make in our staging / delivery process. I'd appreciate it if we didn't hold 1.1.0 hostage for those changes. My understanding from Wendy's comments about the last release process was that we needed more signatures; I believe that the new release is sufficiently-signed. If there are other improvements that we could make, I'm all for making them, but would rather see non-showstopping issues get logged and addressed in 1.1.1 etc.The problem is that with all the stuff in the builds/1.1.0 directory it's not possible to make sense of it. Browsing the builds/1.1.0, there are several things that look like maven artifacts but they're in the wrong place, e.g. openjpa-jdbc/m2- repository/org/apache/openjpa/openjpa-jdbc/1.1.0 which has an extra 1.1.0 directory and has extra files e.g. -rw-rw-r-- 1 pcl openjpa 32 May 14 22:36 openjpa-jdbc-1.1.0.jar.asc.md5 (generally it's not required to checksum a signature;-).So there's a non-trivial step between the artifacts that you've pointed to and the actual release that we propose to mirror to the world. And there's no PMC oversight possible for that non- trivial step.What we need to vote on are the (reproducible) release artifacts: the source and binary distributions with asc and md5 sig/ checksums; and the maven artifacts that will go into the mirrored maven repository.Craig-Patrick On May 15, 2008, at 9:52 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:Hi Patrick, Nice job, but need a bit more to review.There's a requirement that all artifacts have an md5 checksum in addition to the asc signature.Since we plan to put the jar files into the global maven repo, the artifacts should be on the download site for review. The jar files also need md5 and asc signatures.Craig On May 14, 2008, at 11:37 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:OpenJPA Developers- A candidate build for OpenJPA 1.1.0 is available at: http://openjpa.apache.org/builds/1.1.0/downloads/Please review these artifacts and signatures, and vote whether we should release them as Apache OpenJPA version 1.1.0. Release notes for this release are included in the artifact, or can be browsed at:http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openjpa/branches/1.1.0/openjpa-project/RELEASE-NOTES.htmlThe Apache Release Audit Tool has been run on the release, and nomissing licenses were found with the exceptions listed in theexclusion section of the "rat-maven-plugin" configuration in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openjpa/branches/1.1.0/pom.xml . In accordance with http://www.apache.org/foundation/ voting.html#ReleaseVotes , three +1 votes will be sufficient toapprove the release for publication. While it is not possible to veto a release, the vote will remain open for the standard 3 day period (ending at 11:30pm Pacific on Monday 5/19) in order to allow people to thoroughly review the release and perform whatever additional testingthey desire and raise any concerns or objections.A vote of "+1" means you approve of the release for publication, "-1" means you do not approve, and a "+0" or "-0" means you are neutral.Thanks in advance for your diligence in helping to ensure that the quality of the OpenJPA 1.1.0 release reflects the high quality of allof its contributors! -Patrick -- Patrick Linskey 202 669 5907Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!-- Patrick Linskey 202 669 5907Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!-- Patrick Linskey 202 669 5907Craig RussellArchitect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/ jdo408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!-- Patrick Linskey 202 669 5907
Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
