Re: [Jython-dev] Jython 2.7.2b1 -- ready to go?

[Jeff A. <ja...@fa...>]

Hi Frank:

I have some time now to try again, and the access to run the whole 
process for myself (thanks). I'll dry run quietly with 2.7.2b1 and aim 
for an official b2, enlisting your help to make it known.

I fixed the gpg thing (see https://bugs.jython.org/issue2814) although I 
quite like the look of 
https://central.sonatype.org/pages/apache-ant.html#signing-and-deployments-using-the-maven-ant-tasks 
as an alternative to exec-ing gpg. I think the requirements have 
tightened since the previous release so signing will not be the only 
blocker.

I'm sure I can figure it out, but did you learn anything in your staging 
attempts that I can get the easy way?

Jeff

Jeff Allen

On 13/10/2019 09:06, Jeff Allen wrote:
> On 13/10/2019 05:40, fwi...@gm... wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 2:19 PM Jeff Allen<ja...@fa...>  wrote:
>>> Hi Frank:
>>>
>>> Evidently this is keeping you up late. If it hasn't suddenly come right for you, I think I should take this back: seems we're not ready.
>> No worries! Since I'm the only one that has released Jython in the
>> last decade or so, I'm sure there is something peculiar in my
>> environment that is interacting poorly with the current changes. I bet
>> if I grab an old version of build.xml I may be able to get the process
>> to work. I don't have time tonight but I'm sure I can give it a try
>> tomorrow.
>
> Ok, well let us know when you've had enough :). Meanwhile I'll learn 
> what I can about the process. The video 
> <https://youtu.be/dXR4pJ_zS-0?t=300> suggests that when it fails 
> there's quite a lot of evidence where the bundle contents are defective.
>
> An old ./maven/build.xml is worth trying. I'm confident the current 
> main ./build.xml delivers the right things. The safeguards are all in 
> the main one (that stop you labeling what you build as a release if it 
> didn't come from a clean and tagged state).
>
>>> I've got myself GnuPG. I think I could dry run the whole process, fixing my broken scripts as I go, as I did with the rest.I think the outcome would now have to be tagged v2.7.2b2 to avoid confusion. A parallel possibility is to post v2.7.2b1 somewhere and just link it from the website.
>>>
>> A v2.2.2b2 sounds perfectly fine to me if it turns out that I'm unable
>> to get the current version working, but I do want to give it another
>> try. Once I figure out what is needed I'll make sure to let everyone
>> know what the fix was.
> Yes please! We have to encapsulate all this magic in the scripts or 
> the instructions.
>> -Frank
> Jeff