Re: [VOTE] Release MINA 2.0 (take 2)
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: > yes, the fix I suggested creates correct src packages that can be built > locally. > > I will commit the fixed release.xml in a minute. Great! /niklas
Re: [VOTE] Release MINA 2.0 (take 2)
On 2/25/10 12:12 PM, Niklas Gustavsson wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Julien Vermillard
wrote:
Or if we have a maven variable usable for retriving each module
directory ("core" in place of artifactID "mina-core"), we can fix the
release.xml for creating the correct directory.
Using the same directory and artifactIds seems like a much simpler solution.
/niklas
yes, the fix I suggested creates correct src packages that can be built
locally.
I will commit the fixed release.xml in a minute.
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.nextury.com
Re: [VOTE] Release MINA 2.0 (take 2)
On 2/25/10 12:12 PM, Niklas Gustavsson wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Julien Vermillard
wrote:
Or if we have a maven variable usable for retriving each module
directory ("core" in place of artifactID "mina-core"), we can fix the
release.xml for creating the correct directory.
Using the same directory and artifactIds seems like a much simpler solution.
/niklas
Should work if we use ${module.basedir.name} instead of
${module.artifactId} in the release.xml file, when setting the
tag.
i'm testing that atm.
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.nextury.com
Re: [VOTE] Release MINA 2.0 (take 2)
On 2/25/10 12:12 PM, Niklas Gustavsson wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Julien Vermillard
wrote:
Or if we have a maven variable usable for retriving each module
directory ("core" in place of artifactID "mina-core"), we can fix the
release.xml for creating the correct directory.
Using the same directory and artifactIds seems like a much simpler solution.
/niklas
Seems we don't have the same issue on directory studio. Give me a couple
of hours to check that.
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.nextury.com
Re: [VOTE] Release MINA 2.0 (take 2)
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Julien Vermillard
wrote:
> Or if we have a maven variable usable for retriving each module
> directory ("core" in place of artifactID "mina-core"), we can fix the
> release.xml for creating the correct directory.
Using the same directory and artifactIds seems like a much simpler solution.
/niklas
Re: [VOTE] Release MINA 2.0 (take 2)
On 2/25/10 10:30 AM, Julien Vermillard wrote:
Le Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:44:40 +0100,
Niklas Gustavsson a écrit :
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Julien Vermillard
wrote:
Yes it's a bit broken due to the module directory names, you need
to go in each project and build it.
Which seems like a pain for a source package. Could we maybe change
the directory names to match the artifactIds?
/niklas
Or if we have a maven variable usable for retriving each module
directory ("core" in place of artifactID "mina-core"), we can fix the
release.xml for creating the correct directory.
Let's do that. Who cares if the directory's name are prefixed with mina-
anyway ?
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.nextury.com
Re: [VOTE] Release MINA 2.0 (take 2)
Le Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:44:40 +0100,
Niklas Gustavsson a écrit :
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Julien Vermillard
> wrote:
> > Yes it's a bit broken due to the module directory names, you need
> > to go in each project and build it.
>
> Which seems like a pain for a source package. Could we maybe change
> the directory names to match the artifactIds?
>
> /niklas
Or if we have a maven variable usable for retriving each module
directory ("core" in place of artifactID "mina-core"), we can fix the
release.xml for creating the correct directory.
--
Julien Vermillard
Archean Technologies
http://www.archean.fr
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [VOTE] Release MINA 2.0 (take 2)
Le Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:44:40 +0100, Niklas Gustavsson a écrit : > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Julien Vermillard > wrote: > > Yes it's a bit broken due to the module directory names, you need > > to go in each project and build it. > > Which seems like a pain for a source package. Could we maybe change > the directory names to match the artifactIds? > > /niklas +1 -- Julien Vermillard Archean Technologies http://www.archean.fr signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [VOTE] Release MINA 2.0 (take 2)
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Julien Vermillard wrote: > Yes it's a bit broken due to the module directory names, you need to go > in each project and build it. Which seems like a pain for a source package. Could we maybe change the directory names to match the artifactIds? /niklas
Abortion again : Re: [VOTE] Release MINA 2.0 (take 2)
On 2/24/10 11:50 AM, Julien Vermillard wrote: Le Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:06:59 +0100, Julien Vermillard a écrit : Le Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:21:29 +0100, Emmanuel Lecharny a écrit : Hi guys, I canceled the previous vote which was not mentionning a svn version. Julien was kin enough to generate jars : http://people.apache.org/~jvermillard/2.0.0-RC2/ (source tarballs are also available). The build is based on svn revision r912511. [ ] +1 Yes, release 2.0 now [ ] +/-0 I have no opinion [ ] -1 No, wait. My vote : +1 Vote is on for 72 hours, up to friday, 3pm Paris time +1 again I'm changing my vote to -1 because a some tests are failling in a random way, -1 too. There are some failing tests, we can't release now. I abort the vote again :/ -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.nextury.com
Re: [VOTE] Release MINA 2.0 (take 2)
Le Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:06:59 +0100, Julien Vermillard a écrit : > Le Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:21:29 +0100, > Emmanuel Lecharny a écrit : > > > Hi guys, > > > > I canceled the previous vote which was not mentionning a svn > > version. > > > > Julien was kin enough to generate jars : > > http://people.apache.org/~jvermillard/2.0.0-RC2/ > > > > (source tarballs are also available). > > > > The build is based on svn revision r912511. > > > > [ ] +1 Yes, release 2.0 now > > > > [ ] +/-0 I have no opinion > > > > [ ] -1 No, wait. > > > > My vote : +1 > > > > Vote is on for 72 hours, up to friday, 3pm Paris time > > > > +1 again > I'm changing my vote to -1 because a some tests are failling in a random way, I think something was borked recently. Julien -- Julien Vermillard Archean Technologies http://www.archean.fr signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [VOTE] Release MINA 2.0 (take 2)
Le Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:01:35 +0100, Niklas Gustavsson a écrit : > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Julien Vermillard > wrote: > >> (for example, > >> these tar balls does not look like something that came out of mvn > >> assembly:assembly). > > > > Well it is. > > If so, I think our build is broken, maybe due to not having module > artifactIds and module directory names matching. > > > If we reintroduce this module, the tarball will be maven buildable. > > Great! But, are you sure, for example, the core module is known to > Maven as located in a "core" directory, but the assembly seems to have > put it in a mina-core directory. > > /niklas Yes it's a bit broken due to the module directory names, you need to go in each project and build it. -- Julien Vermillard Archean Technologies http://www.archean.fr signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [VOTE] Release MINA 2.0 (take 2)
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Julien Vermillard wrote: >> (for example, >> these tar balls does not look like something that came out of mvn >> assembly:assembly). > > Well it is. If so, I think our build is broken, maybe due to not having module artifactIds and module directory names matching. > If we reintroduce this module, the tarball will be maven buildable. Great! But, are you sure, for example, the core module is known to Maven as located in a "core" directory, but the assembly seems to have put it in a mina-core directory. /niklas
Re: [VOTE] Release MINA 2.0 (take 2)
Le Tue, 23 Feb 2010 18:53:37 +0100, Niklas Gustavsson a écrit : > (for example, > these tar balls does not look like something that came out of mvn > assembly:assembly). Well it is. I did : mvn -Dwith-LGPL-dependencies package assembly:assembly The release process is documented in the wiki you can try it. Apparently the legal module is explicitly excluded of the packaging. And svn blame says it's all Alex fault :) If we reintroduce this module, the tarball will be maven buildable. -- Julien Vermillard Archean Technologies http://www.archean.fr signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [VOTE] Release MINA 2.0 (take 2)
On 2/23/10 6:53 PM, Niklas Gustavsson wrote: On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: My problem is not really building MINA, I just want to make sure that this is not a problem that our users that download source packages from the 2.0 release will have :-) HMMM. Not sure I don't grok the sentence... Can you rephrase in smaller chunks so that I can see where you see a potential problem ? I'll try to rephrase. How will the source packages that will be MINA 2.0 look like? Will they be like the one on this vote (which is not buildable) or in some other structure? If they different, could we please vote on the real release artifacts? Otherwise, it's hard to review them. I could of course only vote on the code, but I think it's a good thing for us to also review the actual release artifacts, not knowing exactly how the guy building the release will do them (for example, these tar balls does not look like something that came out of mvn assembly:assembly). Got it. Let's then branch a 2.0.0 version, and build the packages from it. There is also one thing we should do, follow the ASF rule : " Every ASF release *must* contain a source package, which must be sufficient for a user to build and test the release provided they have access to the appropriate platform and tools" If the source tar ball is not buildable, then we have a problem. We may have to assign a RM at some point (and it won't be me ;) -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.nextury.com
Re: [VOTE] Release MINA 2.0 (take 2)
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: > base line : we vote code, not binaries (this is ASF). We could branch a > release, and vote the branch, assuming that once generated, we would move > the branch in tags, or delete it if we rollback the vote. Or we can vote a > revision, and provide builded packages, for those who don't want to build > them. Personally, I prefer to branch before the release (that way we can change the POM versions and get a real release build to vote on). And, as mentioned in my other email, I find it very useful to have real release binaries to vote on, in addition to the code (which is obviously our ultimate release). I also think we should look into using Nexus and staging (for the next release, this one is already overdue) to slim down the procedure even more. /niklas
Re: [VOTE] Release MINA 2.0 (take 2)
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: >> My problem is not really building MINA, I just want to make sure that >> this is not a problem that our users that download source packages >> from the 2.0 release will have :-) >> > > HMMM. Not sure I don't grok the sentence... Can you rephrase in smaller > chunks so that I can see where you see a potential problem ? I'll try to rephrase. How will the source packages that will be MINA 2.0 look like? Will they be like the one on this vote (which is not buildable) or in some other structure? If they different, could we please vote on the real release artifacts? Otherwise, it's hard to review them. I could of course only vote on the code, but I think it's a good thing for us to also review the actual release artifacts, not knowing exactly how the guy building the release will do them (for example, these tar balls does not look like something that came out of mvn assembly:assembly). /niklas
Re: [VOTE] Release MINA 2.0 (take 2)
On 2/23/10 6:37 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: On Feb 23, 2010, at 8:34 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: On 2/23/10 5:25 PM, Niklas Gustavsson wrote: On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: Julien was kin enough to generate jars : http://people.apache.org/~jvermillard/2.0.0-RC2/ The source in these packages are not buildable with Maven, due to the module paths in the root POM and the directories for the modules not matching. For example, there is no "legal" module and the "parent" module is in a "mina-parent" directory. Is this the same source packages as we plan to release? Pakages are just provided for convenience. Please check out the sources from trunk, revision r912511, if you want to build the project and test the binaries. I'm new here so I'm going to ask what might be an obvious question. Is this the way you usually do releases here in Mina? Seems quite odd to me. We aren't very different from many ASF projects. But we sure would like to know if you someone have better rules, as what we do is pretty empirical. base line : we vote code, not binaries (this is ASF). We could branch a release, and vote the branch, assuming that once generated, we would move the branch in tags, or delete it if we rollback the vote. Or we can vote a revision, and provide builded packages, for those who don't want to build them. Is that ok ? -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.nextury.com
Re: [VOTE] Release MINA 2.0 (take 2)
On 2/23/10 6:24 PM, Niklas Gustavsson wrote: On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: Pakages are just provided for convenience. Please check out the sources from trunk, revision r912511, if you want to build the project and test the binaries. My problem is not really building MINA, I just want to make sure that this is not a problem that our users that download source packages from the 2.0 release will have :-) HMMM. Not sure I don't grok the sentence... Can you rephrase in smaller chunks so that I can see where you see a potential problem ? Thanks ! -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.nextury.com
Re: [VOTE] Release MINA 2.0 (take 2)
Le Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:37:37 -0800, "Alan D. Cabrera" a écrit : > > On Feb 23, 2010, at 8:34 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: > > > On 2/23/10 5:25 PM, Niklas Gustavsson wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Emmanuel > >> Lecharny >> > wrote: > >> > >>> Julien was kin enough to generate jars : > >>> http://people.apache.org/~jvermillard/2.0.0-RC2/ > >>> > >> The source in these packages are not buildable with Maven, due to > >> the module paths in the root POM and the directories for the > >> modules not matching. For example, there is no "legal" module and > >> the "parent" module is in a "mina-parent" directory. Is this the > >> same source packages as we plan to release? > >> > > Pakages are just provided for convenience. Please check out the > > sources from trunk, revision r912511, if you want to build the > > project and test the binaries. > > I'm new here so I'm going to ask what might be an obvious question. > Is this the way you usually do releases here in Mina? Seems quite > odd to me. > > > Regards, > Alan > Before we used to start a vote on trunk :) -- Julien Vermillard Archean Technologies http://www.archean.fr signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [VOTE] Release MINA 2.0 (take 2)
On Feb 23, 2010, at 8:34 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: On 2/23/10 5:25 PM, Niklas Gustavsson wrote: On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny> wrote: Julien was kin enough to generate jars : http://people.apache.org/~jvermillard/2.0.0-RC2/ The source in these packages are not buildable with Maven, due to the module paths in the root POM and the directories for the modules not matching. For example, there is no "legal" module and the "parent" module is in a "mina-parent" directory. Is this the same source packages as we plan to release? Pakages are just provided for convenience. Please check out the sources from trunk, revision r912511, if you want to build the project and test the binaries. I'm new here so I'm going to ask what might be an obvious question. Is this the way you usually do releases here in Mina? Seems quite odd to me. Regards, Alan
Re: [VOTE] Release MINA 2.0 (take 2)
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: > Pakages are just provided for convenience. Please check out the sources from > trunk, revision r912511, if you want to build the project and test the > binaries. My problem is not really building MINA, I just want to make sure that this is not a problem that our users that download source packages from the 2.0 release will have :-) /niklas
Re: [VOTE] Release MINA 2.0 (take 2)
On 2/23/10 5:25 PM, Niklas Gustavsson wrote: On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: Julien was kin enough to generate jars : http://people.apache.org/~jvermillard/2.0.0-RC2/ The source in these packages are not buildable with Maven, due to the module paths in the root POM and the directories for the modules not matching. For example, there is no "legal" module and the "parent" module is in a "mina-parent" directory. Is this the same source packages as we plan to release? Pakages are just provided for convenience. Please check out the sources from trunk, revision r912511, if you want to build the project and test the binaries. -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.nextury.com
Re: [VOTE] Release MINA 2.0 (take 2)
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: > Julien was kin enough to generate jars : > http://people.apache.org/~jvermillard/2.0.0-RC2/ The source in these packages are not buildable with Maven, due to the module paths in the root POM and the directories for the modules not matching. For example, there is no "legal" module and the "parent" module is in a "mina-parent" directory. Is this the same source packages as we plan to release? /niklas
Re: [VOTE] Release MINA 2.0 (take 2)
+1
Re: [VOTE] Release MINA 2.0 (take 2)
Le Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:21:29 +0100, Emmanuel Lecharny a écrit : > Hi guys, > > I canceled the previous vote which was not mentionning a svn version. > > Julien was kin enough to generate jars : > http://people.apache.org/~jvermillard/2.0.0-RC2/ > > (source tarballs are also available). > > The build is based on svn revision r912511. > > [ ] +1 Yes, release 2.0 now > > [ ] +/-0 I have no opinion > > [ ] -1 No, wait. > > My vote : +1 > > Vote is on for 72 hours, up to friday, 3pm Paris time > +1 again -- Julien Vermillard Archean Technologies http://www.archean.fr signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [VOTE] Release MINA 2.0 (take 2)
+1 Jeff On Feb 23, 2010, at 6:21 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: > Hi guys, > > I canceled the previous vote which was not mentionning a svn version. > > Julien was kin enough to generate jars : > http://people.apache.org/~jvermillard/2.0.0-RC2/ > > (source tarballs are also available). > > The build is based on svn revision r912511. > > [ ] +1 Yes, release 2.0 now > > [ ] +/-0 I have no opinion > > [ ] -1 No, wait. > > My vote : +1 > > Vote is on for 72 hours, up to friday, 3pm Paris time > > -- > Regards, > Cordialement, > Emmanuel Lécharny > www.nextury.com > >
[VOTE] Release MINA 2.0 (take 2)
Hi guys, I canceled the previous vote which was not mentionning a svn version. Julien was kin enough to generate jars : http://people.apache.org/~jvermillard/2.0.0-RC2/ (source tarballs are also available). The build is based on svn revision r912511. [ ] +1 Yes, release 2.0 now [ ] +/-0 I have no opinion [ ] -1 No, wait. My vote : +1 Vote is on for 72 hours, up to friday, 3pm Paris time -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.nextury.com
