Re: Questions regarding improving the Apache Commons release process.

[Rob Tompkins]

I’ve found some success now using 
org.apache.maven.plugin-testing:maven-plugin-testing-harness:3.3.0. You may 
disregard the following questions.

Cheers,
-Rob

> On Jan 6, 2018, at 2:03 PM, Rob Tompkins  wrote:
> 
> Hello again Maven Team,
> 
> I’ve made substantive progress towards getting the commons team a release 
> plugin (https://github.com/chtompki/commons-release-plugin 
> ). However, in my attempt 
> at writing plugin unit tests for the first time, I’ve found myself running 
> into difficulties in dealing with which dependencies need to be in the 
> classpath to effectively run the maven-plugin-testing-harness. 
> 
> I was hoping to get another set of eyes on my work, namely the pom and the 
> unit test that is in flight (see the above repository), such that I can get 
> around these classpath issues and start writing proper tests for the plugin. 
> It is quite easy to see the issues that I’m having by cloning the project and 
> running “mvn test:"
> 
> Running org.apache.commons.release.plugin.mojos.CommonsSiteCompressionMojoTest
> Jan 06, 2018 2:00:13 PM org.eclipse.sisu.inject.Logs$JULSink warn
> WARNING: Error injecting: 
> org.apache.maven.artifact.resolver.DefaultArtifactResolver
> java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: 
> Lorg/apache/maven/artifact/transform/ArtifactTransformationManager;
> at java.lang.Class.getDeclaredFields0(Native Method)
> at java.lang.Class.privateGetDeclaredFields(Class.java:2583)
> at java.lang.Class.getDeclaredFields(Class.java:1916)
> 
> Any guidance here would be much welcomed, and moreover I can’t thank you guys 
> enough for the previous insights because they gave me the ability to make 
> solid progress on our release automation.
> 
> Many thanks and all the best,
> -Rob
> 
> 
>> On Dec 28, 2017, at 4:53 PM, Rob Tompkins > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 28, 2017, at 4:05 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Rob,
>>> 
>>> one additional point: currently, for Maven itself, instead of adding new 
>>> Maven-specific ReleasePhase(s) to the default configuration, or configure 
>>> them in 
>>> our parent pom (I'm not sure documentation on how to do that is available: 
>>> I 
>>> could not find it), we chose first to create a separate "dist-tool" to 
>>> check 
>>> consistency of what is currently published in misc places and provide some 
>>> commands to fix when an inconsistency is found.
>>> 
>>> This happens through daily reports done by a Jenkins job [1]:
>>> - distribution area vs Maven Central [2] 
>>> - version from Maven site vs Maven Central [3]
>>> 
>>> We did not produce any release nor made it really configurable for 
>>> conventions 
>>> different from Maven ones (like Common's -src & -bin), but at least there 
>>> is a 
>>> configuration file to define artifacts to check [4]
>> 
>> Interesting. Thanks,.
>> 
>> -Rob
>> 
>>> 
>>> HTH
>>> 
>>> Hervé
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [1] https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/dist-tool-plugin/ 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [2] 
>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/dist-tool-plugin/site/ 
>>> 
>>> dist-tool-check-source-release.html
>>> 
>>> [3] 
>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/dist-tool-plugin/site/ 
>>> 
>>> dist-tool-check-index-page.html
>>> 
>>> [4] 
>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/dist-tool-plugin/site/ 
>>> 
>>> dist-tool.conf.html
>>> 
>>> Le mercredi 27 décembre 2017, 23:32:49 CET Rob Tompkins a écrit :
 Stephen,
 
 I can’t thank you enough for your reply. I’ll take your suggestions and
 continue to sandbox around using the maven-release-plugin as a guideline.
 
 All the best and happy holidays,
 -Rob
 
> On Dec 26, 2017, at 5:27 AM, Stephen Connolly
>  > wrote:> 
> On Tue 26 Dec 2017 at 03:10, Rob Tompkins   
>>> >> wrote:
>> Hello all,
>> 
>> Pardon, maybe this should have gone to your @user list, but why not ping
>> the dev crew. I’ve been playing around the ideas surrounding our fairly
>> manual release process for the components in Commons, and I was hoping
>> for
>> some insights.
>> 
>> Scripting the version changes isn’t really that big of a deal for us, and
>> that I can manage. But, when it comes to publishing our artifacts to the
>> apache nexus repository, and then separately publishing our 

Re: Questions regarding improving the Apache Commons release process.

[Rob Tompkins]

Hello again Maven Team,

I’ve made substantive progress towards getting the commons team a release 
plugin (https://github.com/chtompki/commons-release-plugin 
). However, in my attempt 
at writing plugin unit tests for the first time, I’ve found myself running into 
difficulties in dealing with which dependencies need to be in the classpath to 
effectively run the maven-plugin-testing-harness. 

I was hoping to get another set of eyes on my work, namely the pom and the unit 
test that is in flight (see the above repository), such that I can get around 
these classpath issues and start writing proper tests for the plugin. It is 
quite easy to see the issues that I’m having by cloning the project and running 
“mvn test:"

Running org.apache.commons.release.plugin.mojos.CommonsSiteCompressionMojoTest
Jan 06, 2018 2:00:13 PM org.eclipse.sisu.inject.Logs$JULSink warn
WARNING: Error injecting: 
org.apache.maven.artifact.resolver.DefaultArtifactResolver
java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: 
Lorg/apache/maven/artifact/transform/ArtifactTransformationManager;
at java.lang.Class.getDeclaredFields0(Native Method)
at java.lang.Class.privateGetDeclaredFields(Class.java:2583)
at java.lang.Class.getDeclaredFields(Class.java:1916)

Any guidance here would be much welcomed, and moreover I can’t thank you guys 
enough for the previous insights because they gave me the ability to make solid 
progress on our release automation.

Many thanks and all the best,
-Rob


> On Dec 28, 2017, at 4:53 PM, Rob Tompkins  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Dec 28, 2017, at 4:05 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Rob,
>> 
>> one additional point: currently, for Maven itself, instead of adding new 
>> Maven-specific ReleasePhase(s) to the default configuration, or configure 
>> them in 
>> our parent pom (I'm not sure documentation on how to do that is available: I 
>> could not find it), we chose first to create a separate "dist-tool" to check 
>> consistency of what is currently published in misc places and provide some 
>> commands to fix when an inconsistency is found.
>> 
>> This happens through daily reports done by a Jenkins job [1]:
>> - distribution area vs Maven Central [2] 
>> - version from Maven site vs Maven Central [3]
>> 
>> We did not produce any release nor made it really configurable for 
>> conventions 
>> different from Maven ones (like Common's -src & -bin), but at least there is 
>> a 
>> configuration file to define artifacts to check [4]
> 
> Interesting. Thanks,.
> 
> -Rob
> 
>> 
>> HTH
>> 
>> Hervé
>> 
>> 
>> [1] https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/dist-tool-plugin/
>> 
>> [2] https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/dist-tool-plugin/site/
>> dist-tool-check-source-release.html
>> 
>> [3] https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/dist-tool-plugin/site/
>> dist-tool-check-index-page.html
>> 
>> [4] https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/dist-tool-plugin/site/
>> dist-tool.conf.html
>> 
>> Le mercredi 27 décembre 2017, 23:32:49 CET Rob Tompkins a écrit :
>>> Stephen,
>>> 
>>> I can’t thank you enough for your reply. I’ll take your suggestions and
>>> continue to sandbox around using the maven-release-plugin as a guideline.
>>> 
>>> All the best and happy holidays,
>>> -Rob
>>> 
 On Dec 26, 2017, at 5:27 AM, Stephen Connolly
  wrote:> 
 On Tue 26 Dec 2017 at 03:10, Rob Tompkins > > wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> Pardon, maybe this should have gone to your @user list, but why not ping
> the dev crew. I’ve been playing around the ideas surrounding our fairly
> manual release process for the components in Commons, and I was hoping
> for
> some insights.
> 
> Scripting the version changes isn’t really that big of a deal for us, and
> that I can manage. But, when it comes to publishing our artifacts to the
> apache nexus repository, and then separately publishing our -src and -bin
> assemblies to the dev dist subversion repository (and consequently
> deleting
> those artifacts from nexus as they’re “attached” for the purpose of gpg
> signing), I feel it a tad cumbersome.
> 
> I’ve fiddled around a little with the idea of detaching the -src and -bin
> assemblies after gpg signing with some success, but then I have to delve
> into the mechanics of publishing those up to the subversion repository,
> and
> clearly that problem has already been solved.
 
 Is your problem you don’t want those going to Nexus staging but only to
 dist? Or is it that you want them *also* going to dist.
 
 Personally... I see no reason to remove them from going to Nexus staging
 (in fact I have a background plan to add secondary signing support to
 staging... i’m Waiting to see the Nexus 3 staging APIs 

Re: [commons-release-plugin] Progress report. (Was: Re: Questions regarding improving the Apache Commons release process.)

[Gary Gregory]

Thank you for spearheading making our release process better.

One tricky thing to watch out for are components like Lang and DBCP which
have folder names on dist that are not the artifact ID. IOW lang vs lang3,
dbcp vs dbcp2.

Gary

On Dec 30, 2017 08:29, "Rob Tompkins"  wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I just wanted to let everyone know where I’ve been running lately. I’m
> writing a new commons component specifically “commons-release-plugin” for
> the sake of making a maven plugin that adheres to our release process. I’m
> sandboxing it in my git work area:
>
> https://github.com/chtompki/commons-release-plugin <
> https://github.com/chtompki/commons-release-plugin>
>
> My goal is to get it functional an then bring it up for vote on creating
> it as a full fledged component (in the same vein as the
> commons-build-plugin).
>
> Currently, I have it declared locally in [text] with:
>
> org.apache.commons
> commons-release-plugin
> 0.1-SNAPSHOT
> 
>   scm:svn:https://dist.apache.org/repos/
> dist/dev/commons/text
> 
> 
>   
> detatch-assemblies
> verify
> 
>   detatch-assemblies
> 
>   
> 
>   
>
> immediately following this line: https://github.com/apache/
> commons-text/blob/master/pom.xml#L164  commons-text/blob/master/pom.xml#L164> in the pom. As it stands now, it
> detaches the distributions from the deployment to nexus (after gpg signing,
> and then copies them and the sha1’s and md5’s into a working directory in
> /target), My plan here is to use the maven-release-plugin as a guideline
> for how to publish these up to the dist svn repository. I think I’m further
> going to set up a mojo to do site deployment to somewhere (open to thoughts
> on where the site should go, maybe the dist svn area in a zip file like
> what Gary did with the latest [dbcp] release??).
>
> Given this is a progress report. I’m open to anyone telling me that I’m
> wasting my time and pointing me in a new direction.
>
> Cheers,
> -Rob
>
> P.S. I haven’t figured out how to write tests for maven plugins, so I have
> no testing in the project. I’m open to suggestions/help in that department
> if anyone wants to chip in and help.
>
>
> > On Dec 28, 2017, at 4:05 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rob,
> >
> > one additional point: currently, for Maven itself, instead of adding new
> > Maven-specific ReleasePhase(s) to the default configuration, or
> configure them in
> > our parent pom (I'm not sure documentation on how to do that is
> available: I
> > could not find it), we chose first to create a separate "dist-tool" to
> check
> > consistency of what is currently published in misc places and provide
> some
> > commands to fix when an inconsistency is found.
> >
> > This happens through daily reports done by a Jenkins job [1]:
> > - distribution area vs Maven Central [2]
> > - version from Maven site vs Maven Central [3]
> >
> > We did not produce any release nor made it really configurable for
> conventions
> > different from Maven ones (like Common's -src & -bin), but at least
> there is a
> > configuration file to define artifacts to check [4]
> >
> > HTH
> >
> > Hervé
> >
> >
> > [1] https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/dist-tool-plugin/
> >
> > [2] https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/dist-
> tool-plugin/site/
> > dist-tool-check-source-release.html
> >
> > [3] https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/dist-
> tool-plugin/site/
> > dist-tool-check-index-page.html
> >
> > [4] https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/dist-
> tool-plugin/site/
> > dist-tool.conf.html
> >
> > Le mercredi 27 décembre 2017, 23:32:49 CET Rob Tompkins a écrit :
> >> Stephen,
> >>
> >> I can’t thank you enough for your reply. I’ll take your suggestions and
> >> continue to sandbox around using the maven-release-plugin as a
> guideline.
> >>
> >> All the best and happy holidays,
> >> -Rob
> >>
> >>> On Dec 26, 2017, at 5:27 AM, Stephen Connolly
> >>>  wrote:>
> >>> On Tue 26 Dec 2017 at 03:10, Rob Tompkins  > > wrote:
>  Hello all,
> 
>  Pardon, maybe this should have gone to your @user list, but why not
> ping
>  the dev crew. I’ve been playing around the ideas surrounding our
> fairly
>  manual release process for the components in Commons, and I was hoping
>  for
>  some insights.
> 
>  Scripting the version changes isn’t really that big of a deal for us,
> and
>  that I can manage. But, when it comes to publishing our artifacts to
> the
>  apache nexus repository, and then separately publishing our -src and
> -bin
>  assemblies to the dev dist subversion repository (and consequently
>  deleting
>  those artifacts from nexus as they’re “attached” for the 

[commons-release-plugin] Progress report. (Was: Re: Questions regarding improving the Apache Commons release process.)

[Rob Tompkins]

Hello all,

I just wanted to let everyone know where I’ve been running lately. I’m writing 
a new commons component specifically “commons-release-plugin” for the sake of 
making a maven plugin that adheres to our release process. I’m sandboxing it in 
my git work area:

https://github.com/chtompki/commons-release-plugin 


My goal is to get it functional an then bring it up for vote on creating it as 
a full fledged component (in the same vein as the commons-build-plugin).

Currently, I have it declared locally in [text] with:

org.apache.commons
commons-release-plugin
0.1-SNAPSHOT

  
scm:svn:https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/text


  
detatch-assemblies
verify

  detatch-assemblies

  

  

immediately following this line: 
https://github.com/apache/commons-text/blob/master/pom.xml#L164 
 in the pom. 
As it stands now, it detaches the distributions from the deployment to nexus 
(after gpg signing, and then copies them and the sha1’s and md5’s into a 
working directory in /target), My plan here is to use the maven-release-plugin 
as a guideline for how to publish these up to the dist svn repository. I think 
I’m further going to set up a mojo to do site deployment to somewhere (open to 
thoughts on where the site should go, maybe the dist svn area in a zip file 
like what Gary did with the latest [dbcp] release??).

Given this is a progress report. I’m open to anyone telling me that I’m wasting 
my time and pointing me in a new direction.

Cheers,
-Rob

P.S. I haven’t figured out how to write tests for maven plugins, so I have no 
testing in the project. I’m open to suggestions/help in that department if 
anyone wants to chip in and help.


> On Dec 28, 2017, at 4:05 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY  wrote:
> 
> Hi Rob,
> 
> one additional point: currently, for Maven itself, instead of adding new 
> Maven-specific ReleasePhase(s) to the default configuration, or configure 
> them in 
> our parent pom (I'm not sure documentation on how to do that is available: I 
> could not find it), we chose first to create a separate "dist-tool" to check 
> consistency of what is currently published in misc places and provide some 
> commands to fix when an inconsistency is found.
> 
> This happens through daily reports done by a Jenkins job [1]:
> - distribution area vs Maven Central [2] 
> - version from Maven site vs Maven Central [3]
> 
> We did not produce any release nor made it really configurable for 
> conventions 
> different from Maven ones (like Common's -src & -bin), but at least there is 
> a 
> configuration file to define artifacts to check [4]
> 
> HTH
> 
> Hervé
> 
> 
> [1] https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/dist-tool-plugin/
> 
> [2] https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/dist-tool-plugin/site/
> dist-tool-check-source-release.html
> 
> [3] https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/dist-tool-plugin/site/
> dist-tool-check-index-page.html
> 
> [4] https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/dist-tool-plugin/site/
> dist-tool.conf.html
> 
> Le mercredi 27 décembre 2017, 23:32:49 CET Rob Tompkins a écrit :
>> Stephen,
>> 
>> I can’t thank you enough for your reply. I’ll take your suggestions and
>> continue to sandbox around using the maven-release-plugin as a guideline.
>> 
>> All the best and happy holidays,
>> -Rob
>> 
>>> On Dec 26, 2017, at 5:27 AM, Stephen Connolly
>>>  wrote:> 
>>> On Tue 26 Dec 2017 at 03:10, Rob Tompkins  > wrote:
 Hello all,
 
 Pardon, maybe this should have gone to your @user list, but why not ping
 the dev crew. I’ve been playing around the ideas surrounding our fairly
 manual release process for the components in Commons, and I was hoping
 for
 some insights.
 
 Scripting the version changes isn’t really that big of a deal for us, and
 that I can manage. But, when it comes to publishing our artifacts to the
 apache nexus repository, and then separately publishing our -src and -bin
 assemblies to the dev dist subversion repository (and consequently
 deleting
 those artifacts from nexus as they’re “attached” for the purpose of gpg
 signing), I feel it a tad cumbersome.
 
 I’ve fiddled around a little with the idea of detaching the -src and -bin
 assemblies after gpg signing with some success, but then I have to delve
 into the mechanics of publishing those up to the subversion repository,
 and
 clearly that problem has already been solved.
>>> 
>>> Is your problem you don’t want those going to Nexus staging but only to
>>> dist? Or is it that you want them *also* going to dist.
>>> 
>>> 

Re: Questions regarding improving the Apache Commons release process.

[Rob Tompkins]

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 4:05 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY  wrote:
> 
> Hi Rob,
> 
> one additional point: currently, for Maven itself, instead of adding new 
> Maven-specific ReleasePhase(s) to the default configuration, or configure 
> them in 
> our parent pom (I'm not sure documentation on how to do that is available: I 
> could not find it), we chose first to create a separate "dist-tool" to check 
> consistency of what is currently published in misc places and provide some 
> commands to fix when an inconsistency is found.
> 
> This happens through daily reports done by a Jenkins job [1]:
> - distribution area vs Maven Central [2] 
> - version from Maven site vs Maven Central [3]
> 
> We did not produce any release nor made it really configurable for 
> conventions 
> different from Maven ones (like Common's -src & -bin), but at least there is 
> a 
> configuration file to define artifacts to check [4]

Interesting. Thanks,.

-Rob

> 
> HTH
> 
> Hervé
> 
> 
> [1] https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/dist-tool-plugin/
> 
> [2] https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/dist-tool-plugin/site/
> dist-tool-check-source-release.html
> 
> [3] https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/dist-tool-plugin/site/
> dist-tool-check-index-page.html
> 
> [4] https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/dist-tool-plugin/site/
> dist-tool.conf.html
> 
> Le mercredi 27 décembre 2017, 23:32:49 CET Rob Tompkins a écrit :
>> Stephen,
>> 
>> I can’t thank you enough for your reply. I’ll take your suggestions and
>> continue to sandbox around using the maven-release-plugin as a guideline.
>> 
>> All the best and happy holidays,
>> -Rob
>> 
>>> On Dec 26, 2017, at 5:27 AM, Stephen Connolly
>>>  wrote:> 
>>> On Tue 26 Dec 2017 at 03:10, Rob Tompkins  > wrote:
 Hello all,
 
 Pardon, maybe this should have gone to your @user list, but why not ping
 the dev crew. I’ve been playing around the ideas surrounding our fairly
 manual release process for the components in Commons, and I was hoping
 for
 some insights.
 
 Scripting the version changes isn’t really that big of a deal for us, and
 that I can manage. But, when it comes to publishing our artifacts to the
 apache nexus repository, and then separately publishing our -src and -bin
 assemblies to the dev dist subversion repository (and consequently
 deleting
 those artifacts from nexus as they’re “attached” for the purpose of gpg
 signing), I feel it a tad cumbersome.
 
 I’ve fiddled around a little with the idea of detaching the -src and -bin
 assemblies after gpg signing with some success, but then I have to delve
 into the mechanics of publishing those up to the subversion repository,
 and
 clearly that problem has already been solved.
>>> 
>>> Is your problem you don’t want those going to Nexus staging but only to
>>> dist? Or is it that you want them *also* going to dist.
>>> 
>>> Personally... I see no reason to remove them from going to Nexus staging
>>> (in fact I have a background plan to add secondary signing support to
>>> staging... i’m Waiting to see the Nexus 3 staging APIs before attempting
>>> though. That would mean that the PMC would be able to *add* their GPG
>>> signature to the staged artifacts as part of the voting... in which case
>>> you’d want to hold off uploading to dist until *after* the vote so you get
>>> the full set of signatures)
>>> 
>>> If you want to upload a subset of attached artifacts to dist as part of
>>> the
>>> release, that seems much more tenable... just a derivative of the
>>> scm-publish plugin from what I can see.
>>> 
>>> So I find myself in the space of trying to shoehorn our process into its
>>> 
 the main maven-release-plugin, which I’ve found a tad difficult, versus
 writing our own release plugin, which feels like I would be duplicating
 tons of code (which I don’t want to do).
>>> 
>>> So the release plugin is really two parts:
>>> 
>>> 1. A toolkit for writing release plugins
>>> 
>>> 2. An example that does the job for the requirements of the Maven TLP and
>>> has seemed “sufficient” for a lot of other people.
>>> 
>>> As such, if you have different needs, do not feel bad about having to
>>> encode differently... hopefully the toolkit half of the codebase is
>>> sufficient for you.
>>> 
 I’m curious if you guys have any thoughts on the matter as I’ve been
 playing around in the space for a little while now.
 
 Cheers and happy holidays from UTC-5,
 -Rob
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
  For additional commands,
 e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org 
 
 --
>>> 
>>> Sent from my phone
> 
> 

Re: Questions regarding improving the Apache Commons release process.

[Hervé BOUTEMY]

Hi Rob,

one additional point: currently, for Maven itself, instead of adding new 
Maven-specific ReleasePhase(s) to the default configuration, or configure them 
in 
our parent pom (I'm not sure documentation on how to do that is available: I 
could not find it), we chose first to create a separate "dist-tool" to check 
consistency of what is currently published in misc places and provide some 
commands to fix when an inconsistency is found.

This happens through daily reports done by a Jenkins job [1]:
- distribution area vs Maven Central [2] 
- version from Maven site vs Maven Central [3]

We did not produce any release nor made it really configurable for conventions 
different from Maven ones (like Common's -src & -bin), but at least there is a 
configuration file to define artifacts to check [4]

HTH

Hervé


[1] https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/dist-tool-plugin/

[2] https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/dist-tool-plugin/site/
dist-tool-check-source-release.html

[3] https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/dist-tool-plugin/site/
dist-tool-check-index-page.html

[4] https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/dist-tool-plugin/site/
dist-tool.conf.html

Le mercredi 27 décembre 2017, 23:32:49 CET Rob Tompkins a écrit :
> Stephen,
> 
> I can’t thank you enough for your reply. I’ll take your suggestions and
> continue to sandbox around using the maven-release-plugin as a guideline.
> 
> All the best and happy holidays,
> -Rob
> 
> > On Dec 26, 2017, at 5:27 AM, Stephen Connolly
> >  wrote:> 
> > On Tue 26 Dec 2017 at 03:10, Rob Tompkins > wrote:
> >> Hello all,
> >> 
> >> Pardon, maybe this should have gone to your @user list, but why not ping
> >> the dev crew. I’ve been playing around the ideas surrounding our fairly
> >> manual release process for the components in Commons, and I was hoping
> >> for
> >> some insights.
> >> 
> >> Scripting the version changes isn’t really that big of a deal for us, and
> >> that I can manage. But, when it comes to publishing our artifacts to the
> >> apache nexus repository, and then separately publishing our -src and -bin
> >> assemblies to the dev dist subversion repository (and consequently
> >> deleting
> >> those artifacts from nexus as they’re “attached” for the purpose of gpg
> >> signing), I feel it a tad cumbersome.
> >> 
> >> I’ve fiddled around a little with the idea of detaching the -src and -bin
> >> assemblies after gpg signing with some success, but then I have to delve
> >> into the mechanics of publishing those up to the subversion repository,
> >> and
> >> clearly that problem has already been solved.
> > 
> > Is your problem you don’t want those going to Nexus staging but only to
> > dist? Or is it that you want them *also* going to dist.
> > 
> > Personally... I see no reason to remove them from going to Nexus staging
> > (in fact I have a background plan to add secondary signing support to
> > staging... i’m Waiting to see the Nexus 3 staging APIs before attempting
> > though. That would mean that the PMC would be able to *add* their GPG
> > signature to the staged artifacts as part of the voting... in which case
> > you’d want to hold off uploading to dist until *after* the vote so you get
> > the full set of signatures)
> > 
> > If you want to upload a subset of attached artifacts to dist as part of
> > the
> > release, that seems much more tenable... just a derivative of the
> > scm-publish plugin from what I can see.
> > 
> > So I find myself in the space of trying to shoehorn our process into its
> > 
> >> the main maven-release-plugin, which I’ve found a tad difficult, versus
> >> writing our own release plugin, which feels like I would be duplicating
> >> tons of code (which I don’t want to do).
> > 
> > So the release plugin is really two parts:
> > 
> > 1. A toolkit for writing release plugins
> > 
> > 2. An example that does the job for the requirements of the Maven TLP and
> > has seemed “sufficient” for a lot of other people.
> > 
> > As such, if you have different needs, do not feel bad about having to
> > encode differently... hopefully the toolkit half of the codebase is
> > sufficient for you.
> > 
> >> I’m curious if you guys have any thoughts on the matter as I’ve been
> >> playing around in the space for a little while now.
> >> 
> >> Cheers and happy holidays from UTC-5,
> >> -Rob
> >> -
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> >>  For additional commands,
> >> e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org 
> >> 
> >> --
> > 
> > Sent from my phone



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: Questions regarding improving the Apache Commons release process.

[Rob Tompkins]

Stephen,

I can’t thank you enough for your reply. I’ll take your suggestions and 
continue to sandbox around using the maven-release-plugin as a guideline.

All the best and happy holidays,
-Rob

> On Dec 26, 2017, at 5:27 AM, Stephen Connolly 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Tue 26 Dec 2017 at 03:10, Rob Tompkins  > wrote:
> 
>> Hello all,
>> 
>> Pardon, maybe this should have gone to your @user list, but why not ping
>> the dev crew. I’ve been playing around the ideas surrounding our fairly
>> manual release process for the components in Commons, and I was hoping for
>> some insights.
>> 
>> Scripting the version changes isn’t really that big of a deal for us, and
>> that I can manage. But, when it comes to publishing our artifacts to the
>> apache nexus repository, and then separately publishing our -src and -bin
>> assemblies to the dev dist subversion repository (and consequently deleting
>> those artifacts from nexus as they’re “attached” for the purpose of gpg
>> signing), I feel it a tad cumbersome.
>> 
>> I’ve fiddled around a little with the idea of detaching the -src and -bin
>> assemblies after gpg signing with some success, but then I have to delve
>> into the mechanics of publishing those up to the subversion repository, and
>> clearly that problem has already been solved.
> 
> 
> Is your problem you don’t want those going to Nexus staging but only to
> dist? Or is it that you want them *also* going to dist.
> 
> Personally... I see no reason to remove them from going to Nexus staging
> (in fact I have a background plan to add secondary signing support to
> staging... i’m Waiting to see the Nexus 3 staging APIs before attempting
> though. That would mean that the PMC would be able to *add* their GPG
> signature to the staged artifacts as part of the voting... in which case
> you’d want to hold off uploading to dist until *after* the vote so you get
> the full set of signatures)
> 
> If you want to upload a subset of attached artifacts to dist as part of the
> release, that seems much more tenable... just a derivative of the
> scm-publish plugin from what I can see.
> 
> So I find myself in the space of trying to shoehorn our process into its
>> the main maven-release-plugin, which I’ve found a tad difficult, versus
>> writing our own release plugin, which feels like I would be duplicating
>> tons of code (which I don’t want to do).
> 
> 
> So the release plugin is really two parts:
> 
> 1. A toolkit for writing release plugins
> 
> 2. An example that does the job for the requirements of the Maven TLP and
> has seemed “sufficient” for a lot of other people.
> 
> As such, if you have different needs, do not feel bad about having to
> encode differently... hopefully the toolkit half of the codebase is
> sufficient for you.
> 
>> 
>> 
>> I’m curious if you guys have any thoughts on the matter as I’ve been
>> playing around in the space for a little while now.
>> 
>> Cheers and happy holidays from UTC-5,
>> -Rob
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org 
>> 
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org 
>> 
>> 
>> --
> Sent from my phone

Re: Questions regarding improving the Apache Commons release process.

[sebb]

On 26 December 2017 at 18:48, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> On 26 December 2017 at 04:27, Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Personally... I see no reason to remove them from going to Nexus staging
>> (in fact I have a background plan to add secondary signing support to
>> staging... i’m Waiting to see the Nexus 3 staging APIs before attempting
>> though. That would mean that the PMC would be able to *add* their GPG
>> signature to the staged artifacts as part of the voting... in which case
>> you’d want to hold off uploading to dist until *after* the vote so you get
>> the full set of signatures)
>>

It would be better to upload the original files (including RM-only
sig) to dist/dev.
The updated sigs can always be replaced on dist/dev just before publication.

> Wow, this sounds really cool! So the PMC votes can add a vote by adding
> their GPG signature? That's a really nifty idea.
>
> --
> Matt Sicker 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: Questions regarding improving the Apache Commons release process.

[Matt Sicker]

On 26 December 2017 at 04:27, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Personally... I see no reason to remove them from going to Nexus staging
> (in fact I have a background plan to add secondary signing support to
> staging... i’m Waiting to see the Nexus 3 staging APIs before attempting
> though. That would mean that the PMC would be able to *add* their GPG
> signature to the staged artifacts as part of the voting... in which case
> you’d want to hold off uploading to dist until *after* the vote so you get
> the full set of signatures)
>

Wow, this sounds really cool! So the PMC votes can add a vote by adding
their GPG signature? That's a really nifty idea.

-- 
Matt Sicker 

Re: Questions regarding improving the Apache Commons release process.

[Stephen Connolly]

On Tue 26 Dec 2017 at 03:10, Rob Tompkins  wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> Pardon, maybe this should have gone to your @user list, but why not ping
> the dev crew. I’ve been playing around the ideas surrounding our fairly
> manual release process for the components in Commons, and I was hoping for
> some insights.
>
> Scripting the version changes isn’t really that big of a deal for us, and
> that I can manage. But, when it comes to publishing our artifacts to the
> apache nexus repository, and then separately publishing our -src and -bin
> assemblies to the dev dist subversion repository (and consequently deleting
> those artifacts from nexus as they’re “attached” for the purpose of gpg
> signing), I feel it a tad cumbersome.
>
> I’ve fiddled around a little with the idea of detaching the -src and -bin
> assemblies after gpg signing with some success, but then I have to delve
> into the mechanics of publishing those up to the subversion repository, and
> clearly that problem has already been solved.


Is your problem you don’t want those going to Nexus staging but only to
dist? Or is it that you want them *also* going to dist.

Personally... I see no reason to remove them from going to Nexus staging
(in fact I have a background plan to add secondary signing support to
staging... i’m Waiting to see the Nexus 3 staging APIs before attempting
though. That would mean that the PMC would be able to *add* their GPG
signature to the staged artifacts as part of the voting... in which case
you’d want to hold off uploading to dist until *after* the vote so you get
the full set of signatures)

If you want to upload a subset of attached artifacts to dist as part of the
release, that seems much more tenable... just a derivative of the
scm-publish plugin from what I can see.

So I find myself in the space of trying to shoehorn our process into its
> the main maven-release-plugin, which I’ve found a tad difficult, versus
> writing our own release plugin, which feels like I would be duplicating
> tons of code (which I don’t want to do).


So the release plugin is really two parts:

1. A toolkit for writing release plugins

2. An example that does the job for the requirements of the Maven TLP and
has seemed “sufficient” for a lot of other people.

As such, if you have different needs, do not feel bad about having to
encode differently... hopefully the toolkit half of the codebase is
sufficient for you.

>
>
> I’m curious if you guys have any thoughts on the matter as I’ve been
> playing around in the space for a little while now.
>
> Cheers and happy holidays from UTC-5,
> -Rob
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>
> --
Sent from my phone