[zeromq-dev] ZeroMQ 4.2 release, planning

Kevin Sapper kevinsapper88 at gmail.com
Mon May 9 13:36:51 CEST 2016


The deployment has a couple of constraints (see .travis.yml -> deploy: on:
<constraints>).
One constraint is the repo MUST be "zeromq/libzmq". If we port this to
zeromq4-x and zeromq4-1
we need to adjust this or remove this constraint altogether.

2016-05-09 13:04 GMT+02:00 Luca Boccassi <luca.boccassi at gmail.com>:

> Awesome, thanks!
>
> So now if we port this to zeromq4-x and zeromq4-1, we'll just have to
> push the tags corresponding to the last commit of each previous release,
> right? It might make moving all downloadable to Github a much easier
> process.
>
> On Mon, 2016-05-09 at 11:45 +0200, Kevin Sapper wrote:
> > On libzmq master it's now possible to let travis automatically deploy
> > artifacts. The deployment is triggered if a new tag is created. I've
> > created a test release and tag[1] to see if it is working properly. The
> > files that are available under this release have been deploy by travis.
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/releases/tag/v4.0.2-test
> >
> > 2016-05-04 11:34 GMT+02:00 Luca Boccassi <luca.boccassi at gmail.com>:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2016-05-04 at 05:46 +0200, Michal Vyskocil wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Just for a curiosity - the content of packaging/debian collide with
> > > > standard Debian packaging? It is intentionally there to not clash, so
> > > maybe
> > > > solve this problem. Either by not generating them, either by defying
> > > safer
> > > > location.
> > >
> > > It's not a problem with the location, it's just that the Debian source
> > > package will end up having packaging stuff duplicated and with
> different
> > > content: 2 changelogs, 2 control files, etc.
> > >
> > > But again this is exactly why make dist exists - having that generated
> > > packaging code in the repository is useful, no need to remove it.
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 2016-05-03 at 18:26 +0200, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
> > > > > One note, 'make dist' always fails the first few times because
> files
> > > > > are missing. Keep this in mind. The git tarball has the great
> > > > > advantage of never failing. (And since it makes tarballs look like
> git
> > > > > clones it gives the same experience to all developers.)
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd vote for killing 'make dist'. It also makes us dependent on
> > > autotools.
> > > >
> > > > Uhm I just tried fresh clones of both libzmq and zeromq4-1,
> > > > and ./autogen.sh; ./configure; make dist works just fine.
> > > > It was broken a while ago, but I fixed it, and now the CI tests that
> it
> > > > works.
> > > >
> > > > Besides, IMHO there are 2 big problems with just tarring up the git
> > > > repo.
> > > >
> > > > First of all, it doesn't remove the dependency, it just moves it
> down to
> > > > the user. Which means we'll start getting bug reports that are due to
> > > > the different versions of autotools or cmake used (and there are a
> lot!
> > > > ).
> > > >
> > > > But most importantly, the tarball will ship stuff that shouldn't be
> > > > shipped, which is a huge problem for distribution packagers. For
> > > > example, in CZMQ, the packaging bit would be shipped. That would
> break
> > > > many things in the package build process, and the distro maintainer
> (ie:
> > > > me :-) ) would have to take the shipped tarball and sanitize it,
> nuking
> > > > all extraneous bits. This should not be necessary! That's exactly the
> > > > reason "make dist" exists.
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Luca Boccassi <
> > > luca.boccassi at gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Is any of the API I marked as draft actually ready for release?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Even so, leave it 'draft' until it's actually being used.
> Changing
> > > > > > minds is expensive otherwise.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> So should we use branches instead for bugfix releases?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All fixes to master. In the extraordinary case where a bugfix
> release
> > > > > > cannot be made from master, a branch could work. We never needed
> this
> > > > > > in e.g. CZMQ. I doubt we'd need it in libzmq. I absolutely
> recommend
> > > > > > against branches unless it's the only option. (And I think we've
> > > > > > designed ourselves space to never need that option.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Isn't it possible to do the github release thing with the
> result of
> > > > > >> "make dist"? I think I've read somewhere that you can use the
> > > result of
> > > > > >> CI builds.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Seems Kevin has solved this, almost :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Pieter
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > zeromq-dev mailing list
> > > > > zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> > > > > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > zeromq-dev mailing list
> > > > zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> > > > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > zeromq-dev mailing list
> > > > zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> > > > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > zeromq-dev mailing list
> > > zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> > > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > zeromq-dev mailing list
> > zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20160509/99d79518/attachment.htm>


More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list