Opened 3 years ago

Closed 3 years ago

#19398 closed task (fixed)

Release DescripTor 1.3.0

Reported by: karsten Owned by: karsten
Priority: Medium Milestone:
Component: Metrics/Library Version:
Severity: Normal Keywords:
Cc: iwakeh Actual Points:
Parent ID: Points:
Reviewer: Sponsor:

Description

This is the parent ticket for releasing DescripTor 1.3.0, hopefully in the second half of June.

Child Tickets

TicketStatusOwnerSummaryComponent
#18875closedkarstenConsider replacing RelayNetworkStatusVote's getDirectorySignatures() with getDirectorySignature()Metrics/Library
#19284closedkarstenParse "tunnelled-dir-server" line in server descriptorsMetrics/Library
#19285closedkarstenParse "package" lines in consensuses using method 19 or laterMetrics/Library
#19571closediwakehMissing break statement in RelayNetworkStatusImplMetrics/Library
#19574closediwakehClean up codebase before 1.3.0 releaseMetrics/Library

Attachments (1)

0001-Checkstyle-complaints-reduced-to-three.patch (33.5 KB) - added by iwakeh 3 years ago.

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (16)

comment:1 Changed 3 years ago by karsten

Cc: iwakeh added
Status: newneeds_review

Okay, it looks like we ran out of tickets for the 1.3.0 release. Yay!

Please take a look at my task-19398 branch for a few release preparation commits and give this pre-release tarball some testing, which is also what I'm currently doing. If there are no issues, it'll become the 1.3.0 release.

comment:2 Changed 3 years ago by iwakeh

I attached a patch for the very few checkstyle complaints left after your clean-up work on #19574

The two remaining non-javadoc need more work and should not be hurried.

There are also some minor changes that I just could not resist to do now.

Please review.

comment:3 Changed 3 years ago by atagar

Considering you're talking about a new release just a quick heads up that there's a couple recent dir-spec changes metrics-lib doesn't yet support...

comment:4 Changed 3 years ago by atagar

PS. I still really dislike the 'DescripTor' name. metrics-lib is a lot less confusing. The word 'Descriptor' already has a meaning and it's not this.

comment:5 in reply to:  3 Changed 3 years ago by iwakeh

Replying to atagar:

Considering you're talking about a new release just a quick heads up that there's a couple recent dir-spec changes metrics-lib doesn't yet support...

This will need a new issue.

This is covered by this release, cf. child issue #19284

comment:6 in reply to:  2 ; Changed 3 years ago by karsten

Replying to iwakeh:

I attached a patch for the very few checkstyle complaints left after your clean-up work on #19574

The two remaining non-javadoc need more work and should not be hurried.

There are also some minor changes that I just could not resist to do now.

Please review.

Patch looks good, merged to master, together with my earlier changes which I assume looked okay to you, but without the bump to 1.3.0-dev.

So, we're down to three checkstyle complaints? Maybe we should simply resolve those before putting out the release, so that we don't have to think about putting out the next release just yet. We don't have to do this in a hurry. It doesn't hurt anyone to delay the release a few more days. I'll start looking into those issues tomorrow, unless you do it first.

Thanks!

comment:7 in reply to:  4 Changed 3 years ago by karsten

Replying to atagar:

PS. I still really dislike the 'DescripTor' name. metrics-lib is a lot less confusing. The word 'Descriptor' already has a meaning and it's not this.

Thanks, atagar, for the hint to the missing shared randomness stuff! Much appreciated.

And thanks for sharing your thoughts on the name DescripTor. I moved that discussion to #19616, because this ticket is only for the release of $java-tor-descriptor-parsing-library version 1.3.0.

comment:8 in reply to:  6 Changed 3 years ago by iwakeh

... I'll start looking into those issues tomorrow, unless you do it first.

If you didn't start working on this yet, I'll get to it today.

comment:9 Changed 3 years ago by karsten

Oh, please grab it. I didn't start yet and am not sure whether I'll be able to make progress before today's meeting.

comment:10 Changed 3 years ago by iwakeh

Please review my branch. (Branch optimistically named '*-final').

I actually found a useful comment for the javadoc. But, the reason for the comment is problematic from a design point of view. There shouldn't be two interfaces declaring the very same method; there should be a more structured hierarchy for the interfaces, too. I'll open a new issue for that. (#19640)

Last edited 3 years ago by iwakeh (previous) (diff)

comment:11 Changed 3 years ago by karsten

Status: needs_reviewnew

Looks good, merged! And agreed about that same-method-in-two-interfaces issue, but let's discuss that in the ticket you opened.

Okay, does that mean we're ready to release? In that case I'd prepare a pre-release tarball and start testing it.

comment:12 Changed 3 years ago by iwakeh

Yes, the release process can be started.

comment:13 Changed 3 years ago by karsten

Status: newneeds_review

Okay, please give this second pre-release tarball some testing. If there are no issues, it'll become the 1.3.0 release. Thanks!

comment:14 Changed 3 years ago by iwakeh

I cannot find the shiny new javadoc in the tarball. (#16873)
The javadoc jar was missing in 1.2.0, too.
It seems we simply forgot to add the javadoc jar task.

comment:15 Changed 3 years ago by karsten

Resolution: fixed
Status: needs_reviewclosed

Oh, good catch! Added that part to build.xml and released. Yay! Closing.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.