Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Accumulo >> mail # dev >> [VOTE] Accumulo Instamo Archetype 1.4.4


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [VOTE] Accumulo Instamo Archetype 1.4.4 RC2
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Josh Elser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 2013 12:10 PM, "Christopher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> MD5s and SHA1s look good, and so does the GPG signatures.
>>
>> I saw the following issues:
>>
>> 1) No javadoc jar (should be defined in the "apache-release" profile).
>
> So it would seem that `mvn deploy -Papache-release` isn't sufficient?

I'd have thought it would be, but I'm not sure why it didn't do it.
Ideally, though, you should be doing: mvn release:prepare
release:perform
The profile should be activated automatically and it'll do the deploy
in the perform step.

>> 2) Tarball looks like it isn't using gnu tar format. This could cause
>> problems with long filenames on some systems. You need the following
>> in your pluginManagement section:
>>         <plugin>
>>           <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
>>           <artifactId>maven-assembly-plugin</artifactId>
>>           <configuration>
>>             <tarLongFileMode>gnu</tarLongFileMode>
>>           </configuration>
>>         </plugin>
>> (I really don't know why that isn't the default. This might be
>> addressed with the "apache-release" profile)
>
> x.x
>
>> 3) What's the deal with the #set lines at the top of the file? What do
>> these do? Are these needed? Because ShellExample.java is missing them.
>> Is that expected?
>> 4) There appears to be two distinct READMEs. Would it be better to
>> consolidate them?
>
> No. One is for the archetype and one is for the code generated by the
> archetype. Completely different IMO.

Okay. Wasn't sure if it might be sane to merge them, but I see the
value in keeping them separate.

>> 5) There appears to be a discrepancy between the LICENSE and NOTICE
>> files that are in the project and the archetype-resources. I'd expect
>> them to be the same.
>
> I'll check into that.
>
>> 6) I can't see the commit you referenced above, because it hasn't been
>> pushed. You should push it in another branch, if you don't want to tag
>> it, so I can compare the source in that commit with the contents of
>> the tarball, before it's actually tagged as "1.4.4" upon vote success.
>
> I guess I forgot to push tags?
>
>> 7) It looks like the release plugin put in the wrong tag name
>> ("1.4.4-RC2" instead of "1.4.4").
>
> This was intentional. I do not like deleting tags at all. The intent I took
> from our last discussion was to provide a commit (which I must have
> forgotten to push?) and make a real 1.4.4 tag when the vote succeeds.

Right, so the release plugin should make a few commits when it runs,
and then it tags one of them. You don't want to push the tag upstream
yet, but you do want those commits that represent the tag's history to
be in the repo, so we can reference them by sha1 (just like you did
above). So, you can push those manually to a new branch made from the
tag. Since you're not going to push the tag until the vote passes, it
doesn't matter that its name is the final tag name. You can name the
branch 1.4.4-RC# instead of the tag, but the contents/history of that
branch will be the contents/history of the tag, once pushed (if vote
passes).

If the vote passes, push the tag, delete the RC branch (or just tag
the RC branch... it's the same thing), and merge to master. If the
vote fails, discard the branch and the tag without merging (because we
don't need the extra commits from the release plugin for a release
that failed).

>> 8) I think the attaching sources is redundant, because it's configured
>> in the parent POM's "apache-release" profile.
>
> I don't follow (not in front of code either).

There's a section of the POM whose purpose is to attach the sources.
But, this isn't necessary, because the apache-release profile already
defines this same thing. (Not really an issue... just unnecessary.)

>
>> Overall, -1, due to the above issues (though they are all minor, they add
> up).
>>
>> --
>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Josh Elser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: