incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jun Liu <liu...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache Dubbo (Incubating) 2.6.3 [RC3]
Date Mon, 20 Aug 2018 03:02:01 GMT
> The 2.6.3 tag does not agree with the source release. This is a
> significant issue and enough for me to vote against the release. A diff
> shows most (all?) of the pom.xml have a version of "2.6.4-SNAPSHOT" in
> the tag but "2.6.3" in the source release.
> 
> I dug into this a little. At first I thought the tag / commit in the
> vote was wrong. It is. But is isn't just that. If I go back to
> 
> a8be0eaaddab198ed03b0150d4db03e2b22f023f
> 
> things are better but:
> a) there are still differences
> b) the tag includes multiple commits after this point

Thanks for your feedback, Mark, I have double checked the version mismatch problem and it
does exist.

Despite that all files except for the pom version are the same, I agree it’s still an issue
that needs revoting. It will confuse developers when trying to rebuild from the tag. The root
problem is more about a package or upload problem than a technical problem. We used maven-release-plugin
to prepare for the release, which has changed the pom version to ‘2.6.4-SNAPSHOT’ since
RC1, I remember to change to 2.6.3 before tagging in RC2 but forget to do that in this round.


I think we should build a release script to automate the whole release process to avoid this
kind of problems.

Best regards,
Jun

> On 18 Aug 2018, at 05:56, Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> On 12/08/18 08:12, Jun Liu wrote:
> 
> <snip/>
> 
>> Please vote accordingly:
>> [ ] +1 approve 
>> [ ] +0 no opinion 
>> [X] -1 disapprove with the reason (binding)
> 
> The sha512 hashes are missing the '*' marker that indicates they are
> hashes for binary files rather than text files. Trivial issue. Can be
> addressed in the next release.
> 
> I'd expect the files to be named "apache-dubbo..." not "dubbo...". Nice
> to have (not all Apache projects use this naming convention). Something
> to consider for the next release.
> 
> Consider including mvnw and mvnw.cmd in the source release so it is
> simpler to get started with the build from a source release.
> 
> The 2.6.3 tag does not agree with the source release. This is a
> significant issue and enough for me to vote against the release. A diff
> shows most (all?) of the pom.xml have a version of "2.6.4-SNAPSHOT" in
> the tag but "2.6.3" in the source release.
> 
> I dug into this a little. At first I thought the tag / commit in the
> vote was wrong. It is. But is isn't just that. If I go back to
> 
> a8be0eaaddab198ed03b0150d4db03e2b22f023f
> 
> things are better but:
> a) there are still differences
> b) the tag includes multiple commits after this point
> 
> 
> Mark


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message