[You can also view the single-page version of this document.]
This document can generally be broken into three parts, in increasing order of specificity:
Subversion release managers use a set of steps codified in a Python script named release.py. This script can be used to perform most of the automated steps in the release process. Run it with the -h option to get more information.
In addition to the following project-specific guidelines, aspiring release managers may also want to read up on the general Apache release policies. They can seem a bit patchwork at times, but give a good idea of general best practice and how Subversion fits in the larger ASF ecosystem.
Subversion uses "MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH" release numbers. We do not use the "even==stable, odd==unstable" convention; any unqualified triplet indicates a stable release:
1.0.1 --> first stable patch release of 1.0 1.1.0 --> next stable minor release of 1.x after 1.0.x 1.1.1 --> first stable patch release of 1.1.x 1.1.2 --> second stable patch release of 1.1.x 1.2.0 --> next stable minor release after that
The order of releases is semi-nonlinear — a 1.0.3 might come out after a 1.1.0. But it's only "semi"-nonlinear because eventually we declare a patch line defunct and tell people to upgrade to the next minor release, so over the long run the numbering is basically linear.
The numbers may have multiple digits. For example, 1.7.19 is the nineteenth patch release in the 1.7.x line; it was released three years after 1.7.2, and three months before 1.7.20.
Subversion releases may be qualified by text following the version number, which all represent various steps in the pre-release process. In order from least- to most-stable:
|Qualifier||Meaning||Example||Output of svn --version|
|Alpha||We know or expect there to be problems, but solicit testing from interested individuals.||subversion-1.7.0-alpha2||version 1.7.0 (Alpha 2)|
|Beta||We don't expect there to be problems, but be wary just in case.||subversion-1.7.0-beta1||version 1.7.0 (Beta 2)|
|RC (Release Candidate)||This release is a candidate to become the final proposed version. If no serious bugs are found, the -rc tag will be dropped, and the contents of this release will be declared stable.||subversion-1.7.0-rc4||version 1.7.0 (Release Candidate 4)|
When you 'make install' subversion-1.7.0-rc1, it still installs as though it were "1.7.0", of course. The qualifiers are metadata on the release; we want each subsequent prerelease release to overwrite the previous one, and the final release to overwrite the last prerelease.
For working copy builds, there is no tarball name to worry about, but 'svn --version' still produces special output:
version 1.7.1-dev (under development)
The version number is the next version that project is working towards. The important thing is to say "under development". This indicates that the build came from a working copy, which is useful in bug reports.
We also produce a set of release-like tarballs from the trunk development line every night, but these have no testing and are only recommended for users looking to run the bleeding edge, or test a particular bug fix, without building directly from the repository.
When we want new features to get wide testing before we enter the formal stabilization period, we'll sometimes release alpha and beta tarballs. There is no requirement to do any beta releases even if there were "alpha1", "alpha2", etc releases; we could just jump straight to "rc1". However, there are circumstances where a beta can be useful: for example, if we're unsure of a UI decision and want to get wider user feedback before solidifying it into a formal release candidate.
Alphas and betas are only for people who want to help test, and who understand that there may be incompatible changes before the final release. The signature requirements are at the release manager's discretion. Typically, the RM will require only 1 or 2 signatures for each platform, and to tell signers that they can still sign even if their testing reveals minor failures, as long as they think the code is solid enough to make testing by others worthwhile. The RM should request that signers include a description of any errors along with their signatures, so the problems can be published when the alpha or beta release is announced.
When the alpha or beta is publicly announced, distribution packagers should be firmly warned off packaging it. See this mail from Hyrum K. Wright for a good model.
Our compatibility rules (as detailed below) only start to apply once a final x.y.0 version has been blessed and released. Any API's, wire protocols, and on-disk formats that appeared on trunk or in an alpha/beta/rc pre-release are not subject to any compatibility promises; we may change them arbitrarily until the final release, if we find a good reason to do so. (Often, a last-minute design wart is discovered shortly before the compatibility barrier is crossed, and we hurry to fix it before it's set in stone.)
This is particularly a problem for persistent data (working copies and repositories), since we might not provide an upgrade path—code paths or designated scripts for the legacy format—with the final release. (Of course, we might provide such scripts for the benefit of developers and users who test our pre-releases; but we do not obligate ourselves to do so.) Consequently, pre-releases should never be trusted with any data meant for long-term safe-keeping.
At the same time, we wish to remind the reader that the best time to point out API design bugs is before they are released and set in stone—in other words, during the initial design and pre-release stages.
If a release or candidate release needs to be quickly re-issued due to some non-code problem (say, a packaging glitch), it's okay to reuse the same name, as long as the tarball hasn't been blessed by signing yet. However, if it has been uploaded to the standard distribution area with signatures, or if the re-issue was due to a change in code a user might run, then the old name must be tossed and the next name used.
If the old name is tossed before the would-be release tarball was published and announced to users, the tossed name is considered a non-public release, and documentation (such as CHANGES and the tag's log message) should be updated to reflect that. (See 1.8.7 for an example.) Tags and tarballs of tossed releases remain in the repository history, but they are not supported for general use (on the contrary, they are known to have release-blocker bugs).
Subversion follows strict compatibility, with the same guidelines as APR (see http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html), plus a few extensions, described later. These guidelines are in place to ensure various forms of client/server interoperability, and make sure users have a clear upgrade path between MAJOR.MINOR Subversion releases.
Compatibility can span a number of axes: everything from APIs and ABIs to command line output formats. We try to balance to need to modify the existing architecture to support new features, while still supporting current users to the greatest extent possible. The general idea is:
Upgrading/downgrading between different patch releases in the same MAJOR.MINOR line never breaks code. It may cause bugfixes to disappear/reappear, but API signatures and semantics remain the same. (Of course, the semantics may change in the trivial ways appropriate for bugfixes, just not in ways that would force adjustments in calling code.)
Upgrading to a new minor release in the same major line may cause new APIs to appear, but not remove any APIs. Any code written to the old minor number will work with any later minor number in that line. However, downgrading afterwards may not work, if new code has been written that takes advantage of the new APIs.
(Occasionally, bugs are found which require the behavior of old APIs to be modified slightly. This typically only manifests itself in various corner cases and other uncommon area. These changes are documented as API errata for each MAJOR.MINOR release.)
When the major number changes, all bets are off. This is the only opportunity for a full reset of the APIs, and while we try not to gratuitously remove interfaces, we will use it to clean house a bit.
Subversion extends the APR guidelines to cover client/server compatibility questions:
A patch or minor number release of a server (or client) never breaks compatibility with a client (or server) in the same major line. However, new features offered by the release might be unsupported without a corresponding upgrade to the other side of the connection. For updating ra_svn code specifically, please observe these principles:
Fields can be added to any tuple; old clients will simply ignore them. (Right now, the marshalling implementation does not let you put number or boolean values in the optional part of a tuple, but changing that will not affect the protocol.)
We can use this mechanism when information is added to an API call.
At connection establishment time, clients and servers exchange a list of capability keywords.
We can use this mechanism for more complicated changes, like introducing pipelining or removing information from API calls.
New commands can be added; trying to use an unsupported command will result in an error which can be checked and dealt with.
The protocol version number can be bumped to allow graceful refusal of old clients or servers, or to allow a client or server to detect when it has to do things the old way.
This mechanism is a last resort, to be used when capability keywords would be too hard to manage.
Working copy and repository formats are backward- and forward-compatible for all patch releases in the same minor series. They are forward-compatible for all minor releases in the same major series; however, a minor release is allowed to make a working copy or repository that doesn't work with previous minor releases, where "make" could mean "upgrade" as well as "create".
Occasionally, security issues are reported or discovered in the Subversion which warrant special treatment when releasing. The general release process is the same, and details of how the developers treat these issues is covered elsewhere.
Subversion does not distribute binary packages, but instead relies upon third-party packagers to do so. Luckily, many individuals and companies have stepped in to volunteer their efforts in this regard, and we are grateful for their efforts.
If you are a third-party packager, you may encounter instances when a bug fix or other change is important for your users, and you want to get it to them more quickly than the standard Subversion release cycle. Or you may maintain a set of patches locally which benefit your target audience. If possible, it is preferred to use the patch process and have your changes accepted and applied to trunk to be released on the normal Subversion release schedule.
However, if you feel that you need to make changes that would not be widely accepted by the Subversion developer community, or need to provide early access to unreleased features, you should follow the guidelines below. They are intended to help prevent confusion in the user community, and make both your distribution and the official Subversion releases as successful as possible.
First, make sure you follow the ASF trademark policy. You will need to differentiate your release from the standard Subversion releases to reduce any potential confusion caused by your custom release.
Second, consider creating a branch in the public Subversion repository to track your changes and to potentially allow your custom changes to be merged into mainline Subversion. (If you do not have it already, ask for commit access.)
Third, if your custom release is likely to generate bug reports that would not be relevant to mainline Subversion, please stay in touch with the users of the custom release so you can intercept and filter those reports. But of course, the best option would be not to be in that situation in the first place — the more your custom release diverges from mainline Subversion, the more confusion it invites. If you must make custom releases, please try to keep them as temporary and as non-divergent as possible.
When a new, improved version of an API is introduced, the old one remains for compatibility, at least until the next major release (2.0.0). However, we mark the old one as deprecated and point to the new one, so people know to write to the new API if at all possible. When deprecating, mention the release after which the deprecation was introduced, and point to the new API. If possible, replace the old API documentation with a diff to the new one. For example:
/** * Similar to svn_repos_dump_fs3(), but with a @a feedback_stream instead of * handling feedback via the @a notify_func handler * * @since New in 1.1. * @deprecated Provided for backward compatibility with the 1.6 API. */ SVN_DEPRECATED svn_error_t * svn_repos_dump_fs2(svn_repos_t *repos, svn_stream_t *dumpstream, svn_stream_t *feedback_stream, svn_revnum_t start_rev, svn_revnum_t end_rev, svn_boolean_t incremental, svn_boolean_t use_deltas, svn_cancel_func_t cancel_func, void *cancel_baton, apr_pool_t *pool);
When the major release number changes, the "best" new API in a
series generally replaces all the previous ones (assuming it subsumes
their functionality), and it will take the name of the original API.
Thus, marking '
svn_repos_dump_fs' as deprecated in
1.1.x doesn't mean
that 2.0.0 doesn't have '
svn_repos_dump_fs', it just means the
function's signature will be different: it will have the signature
svn_repos_dump_fs3, or whatever) in
1.1.x. The numbered-suffix names disappear, and there is a single
One exception to this replacement strategy is when the old function has a totally unsatisfying name anyway. Deprecation is a chance to fix that: we give the new API a totally new name, mark the old API as deprecated, point to the new API; then at the major version change, we remove the old API, but don't rename the new one to the old name, because its new name is fine.
Minor and major number releases go through a stabilization period before release, and remain in maintenance (bugfix) mode after release. To start the release process, we create an "A.B.x" branch based on the latest trunk.
The stabilization period for a new A.B.0 release normally lasts four weeks, and allows us to make conservative bugfixes and discover showstopper issues. The stabilization period begins with a release candidate tarball with the version A.B.0-rc1. Further release candidate tarballs may be made as blocking bugs are fixed; for example, if a set of language bindings is found to be broken, it is prudent to make a new release candidate when they are fixed so that those language bindings may be tested.
At the beginning of the final week of the stabilization period, a new release candidate tarball should be made if there are any showstopper changes pending since the last one. The final week of the stabilization period is reserved for critical bugfixes; fixes for minor bugs should be deferred to the A.B.1 release. A critical bug is a non-edge-case crash, a data corruption problem, a major security hole, or something equally serious.
Under some circumstances, the stabilization period will be extended:
If a potentially destabilizing change must be made in order to fix a bug, the entire four-week stabilization period is restarted. A potentially destabilizing change is one which could affect many parts of Subversion in unpredictable ways, or which involves adding a substantial amount of new code. Any incompatible API change (only allowable in the first place if the new release is an A.0.0 release) should be considered a potentially destabilizing change.
If a critical bugfix is made during the final week of the stabilization period, the final week is restarted. The final A.B.0 release is always identical to the release candidate made one week before (with the exceptions discussed below).
If there are disagreements over whether a change is potentially destabilizing or over whether a bug is critical, they may be settled with a committer vote.
After the A.B.0 release is out, patch releases (A.B.1, A.B.2, etc.) follow when bugfixes warrant them. Patch releases do not require a four week soak, because only conservative changes go into the line.
Certain kinds of commits can go into A.B.0 without restarting the soak period, or into a later release without affecting the testing schedule or release date:
Changes to the STATUS file.
Changes that are a normal part of release bookkeeping, for example, the steps listed in notes/releases.txt.
Changes to dist.sh by, or approved by, the release manager.
Changes to message translations in .po files or additions of new .po files.
Anything affecting only tools/, packages/, or bindings/.
Changes to printed output, such as error and usage messages, as
long as format string "
%" codes and their args are not
NOTE: The requirements on message translation changes are looser than for text messages in C code. Changing format specifiers in .po files is allowed because their validity can be checked mechanically (with the -c flag on msgfmt of GNU gettext). This is done at build time if GNU gettext is in use.
Core code changes, of course, require voting, and restart the soak or test period, since otherwise the change could be undertested.
The voting system works like this:
A change to the A.B.x line must be first proposed in the A.B.x/STATUS file. Each proposal consists of a short identifying block (e.g., the revision number of a trunk or related-line commit, or perhaps an issue number), a brief description of the change, an at-most-one-line justification of why it should be in A.B.x, perhaps some notes/concerns, and finally the votes. The notes and concerns are meant to be brief summaries to help a reader get oriented; please don't use the STATUS file for actual discussion, use dev@ instead.
Here's an example, probably as complex as an entry would ever get:
* r98765 (issue #56789) Make commit editor take a closure object for future mindreading. Justification: API stability, as prep for future enhancement. Branch: 1.8.x-r98765 Notes: There was consensus on the desirability of this feature in the near future; see thread at http://... (Message-Id: blahblah). Merge with --accept=mc. Concerns: Vetoed by jerenkrantz due to privacy concerns with the implementation; see thread at http://... (Message-Id: blahblah) Votes: +1: ghudson, bliss +0: cmpilato -0: gstein -1: jerenkrantz
A change needs three +1 votes from full committers (or partial committers for the involved areas), and no vetoes, to go into A.B.x. If partial committers would like to vote for a different area, which does not fall within their privilege, it must be made clear in the STATUS file that their vote is 'non-binding' as follows:
* r31833 svndumpfilter: Don't match prefixes to partial path components. Fixes #desc4 of issue #1853. Votes: +1: danielsh, hwright +1 (non-binding): stylesen
If you cast a veto (i.e. -1), please state the reason in the concerns field, and include a url / message-id for the list discussion if any. You can go back and add the link later if the thread isn't available at the time you commit the veto.
If you add revisions to a group, note that the previous voters have not voted for those revisions, as follows:
* r30643, r30653, r30785 Update bash completion script. Votes: +1: arfrever (r30785 only), stylesen
If in case votes have been communicated via IRC or other means, note that in the log message. Obvious fixes do not require '(rX only)' to be mentioned.
Voting +1 on a change doesn't just mean you approve of it in principle. It means you have thoroughly reviewed the change, and find it correct and as nondisruptive as possible. When it is committed to the release branch, the log message will include the names of all who voted for it, as well as the original author and the person making the commit. All of these people are considered equally answerable for bugs.
If you've reviewed a patch, and like it but have some reservations, you can write "+1 (concept)" and then ask questions on the list about your concerns. You can write "+0" if you like the general idea but haven't reviewed the patch carefully. Neither of these votes counts toward the total, but they can be useful for tracking down people who are following the change and might be willing to spend more time on it.
When votes are listed in the STATUS file, they are placed into a section for a given release. Some developers may want to vote the change into a later release, if (for example) they believe it requires further review or testing. Simply add a comment along with your vote:
* r12345 Fiddle with the hoobey-gidget to clean the garblesnarf. Justification: All hell breaks loose if the jobbywonk gets out. Votes: +1: brane +1: gstein (for 1.7.2)
Since votes are tied to specific releases (specified by the section they fall under), be very careful when moving change candidates among the sections. Existing votes were for the original version, not where the candidate has been moved it. Annotate existing votes as being cast only for the original version.
There is a somewhat looser voting system for areas that are not core code, and that may have fewer experts available to review changes (for example, tools/, packages/, bindings/, test scripts, etc.). A change in these areas can go in with a +1 from a full committer or a partial committer for that area, at least one +0 or "concept +1" from any other committer, and no vetoes. (If a change affects the build system, however, it is considered a core change, and needs three +1's.) Use your judgment and don't review changes unless you have some competence to do so, of course. The goal is to get at least two pairs of eyes on the change, without demanding that every reviewer have the same amount of expertise as the area maintainer. This way one can review for general sanity, accurate comments, obvious mistakes, etc, without being forced to assert "Yes, I understand these changes in every detail and have tested them."
Before proposing a change in STATUS, you should try merging it onto the branch to ensure that it doesn't produce merge conflicts. If conflicts occur, please create a new temporary branch from the release branch with your changes merged and the conflicts resolved. The branch should be named A.B.x-rYYYY, where YYYY is the first revision of your change in the STATUS file. Add a note in the STATUS file about the existence of the temporary branch. If the change involves further work, you can merge those revisions to the branch. When the entry for this change is removed from STATUS, this temporary branch should also be removed to avoid cluttering the /branches directory.
NOTE: Changes to STATUS regarding the temporary branch, including voting, are always kept on the main release branch.
Before the actual release, send an e-mail to the translators to request updates of the .po files. Take their e-mail addresses from the COMMITTERS file in trunk.
This should be done after all localised strings have stabilised in their final form for the release, but sufficiently in advance of the actual release to allow the translators to do their work. As a rule of thumb, send the notification at the least one week, preferably more, prior to the intended release. If many strings have changed, as would be the case for the first release from a new branch, then let more time pass.
So, a release branch has stabilized, and you are gearing up to roll the release. The details of the rolling process are automated by the release.py helper script. To run this script, you'll need a Subversion trunk working copy (or a shallow trunk working copy containing the tools/dist and build/generator directories). Run release.py -h to get a list of available subcommands.
Before you can actually roll the archives, you need to set up a white-room rolling environment. This environment must contain pristine versions of some build tools.
It is important that you do not use distribution shipped versions of this software as they are often patched in ways that are not portable. The version numbers given above should normally be reconsidered and increased to the latest stable upstream release in the time leading up to an A.B.0 release. Changing the version within an A.B.x series should only be done with careful considereration.
Autoconf, Libtool and SWIG: Pick a directory to contain your special build tools for Subversion RM duties - for example /opt/svnrm. Configure, build and install the three pieces of software with the release.py build-env command.
mkdir -p /opt/svnrm && cd /opt/svnrm && $HOME/wc/svn/tools/dist/release.py build-env X.Y.Z
Create the tarballs: Run:
PATH="/opt/svnrm/prefix/bin:$PATH" ./release.py --base-dir /opt/svnrm roll --branch branches/X.Y.x X.Y.Z 1234When release.py is done you'll have tarballs within the /opt/svnrm/deploy directory.
Test one or both of the tarballs:
a) tar zxvf subversion-X.Y.Z.tar.gz; cd subversion-X.Y.Z b) ./configure See INSTALL, section III.B for detailed instructions on configuring/building Subversion. If you installed Apache in some place other than the default, as mentioned above, you will need to use the same --prefix=/usr/local/apache2 option as used to configure Apache. You may also want to use --enable-mod-activation, which will automatically enable the required Subversion modules in the Apache config file. c) make d) make check e) make install (this activates mod_dav) f) make davcheck For this, start up Apache after having configured according to the directions in subversion/tests/cmdline/README. Make sure, that if you maintain a development installation of apache, that you check the config file and update it for the new release area where you're testing the tar-ball. (Unless you rename the tree which gets extracted from the tarball to match what's in httpd.conf, you will need to edit httpd.conf) g) make svncheck First, start up svnserve with these args: $ subversion/svnserve/svnserve -d -r \ `pwd`/subversion/tests/cmdline -d tells svnserve to run as a daemon -r tells svnserve to use the following directory as the logical file system root directory. After svnserve is running as a daemon 'make svncheck' should run h) Then test that you can check out the Subversion repository with this environment: subversion/svn/svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk i) Verify that the perl, python, and ruby swig bindings at least compile. If you can't do this, then have another developer verify. (see bindings/swig/INSTALL for details) Ensure that ./configure detected a suitable version of swig, perl, python, and ruby. Then: make swig-py make check-swig-py sudo make install-swig-py make swig-pl make check-swig-pl sudo make install-swig-pl make swig-rb make check-swig-rb sudo make install-swig-rb j) Verify that the javahl bindings at least compile. If you can't do this, then have another developer verify. (see subversion/bindings/javahl/README for details) Ensure that ./configure detected a suitable jdk, and then possibly re-run with '--enable-javahl', '--with-jdk=' and '--with-junit=': make javahl sudo make install-javahl make check-javahl k) Verify that the ctypes python bindings at least compile. If you can't do this then have another developer verify. (see subversion/bindings/ctypes-python/README for details) Ensure that ./configure detected a suitable ctypesgen, and then possibly re-run with '--with-ctypesgen': make ctypes-python sudo make install-ctypes-python make check-ctypes-python l) Verify that get-deps.sh works and does not emit any errors. ./get-deps.sh
Use GnuPG to sign release:Use release.py to sign the release:
release.py sign-candidates --target /opt/svnrm/deploy X.Y.ZThis will run the equivalent of the following commands for you:
gpg -ba subversion-X.Y.Z.tar.bz2 gpg -ba subversion-X.Y.Z.tar.gz gpg -ba subversion-X.Y.Z.zipand append gpg signatures to the corresponding .asc files.
Create the tag with the svn_version.h that reflects the final release. You do this using:
release.py --base-dir /opt/svnrm create-tag X.Y.Z 1234
Note: Please always make a tag, even for release candidates.
create-tag will bump the version number in the STATUS and svn_version.h files for the original branch. If you just did 1.0.2 then both files should have the proper value for 1.0.3 and so on.
Commit the tarballs, signatures and checksums to https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion There is a release.py subcommand that automates this step:
release.py --base-dir /opt/svnrm post-candidates 1.7.0
Announce that the candidates are available for testing by sending an email to the dev@ list and by adjusting the topic on #svn-dev.
Update the issue tracker to have appropriate versions/milestones. If releasing a new minor release a version for 1.MINOR.x should be added. All releases should add a milestone for the next release (i.e. 1.MINOR.x+1). If you do not have permissions to do so please ask on IRC or send an email to the dev@ list.
Because Subversion releases are distributed through the ASF mirror network, it is important that end-users be able to verify the authenticity of the source code packages they download. Checksums are sufficient to detect corruption in the download process, but to prevent a malicious individual or mirror operator from distributing replacement packages, each source code package must be cryptographically signed by members of the Subversion PMC. These signatures are done using each committer's private PGP key, and are then published with the release so that end users can verify the integrity of the downloaded packages.
When creating the initial set of tarballs, the release manager will also create the first set of signatures. While the tarballs themselves may be built on people.apache.org, it is important that the signatures are not generated there. Signing tarballs requires a private key, and storing private keys on ASF hardware is strongly discouraged. After signing the tarballs (using the process below) the release manager should upload the signatures to the preliminary distribution location, and place them in the same directory as the tarballs.
Before a release is officially made public, it must receive three +1 votes from members of the Subversion PMC. In addition, as a matter of project policy, we require testing and signatures from at least three PMC members on each of the major platforms we support: Windows and *nix. For -alpha and -beta releases, we still require at least one +1 vote on each major platform we support, but waive the requirement for three signers on each platform. (The requirement for at least three signers in total remains.) Members of the PMC, as well as enthusiastic community members are encourages to download the tarballs from the preliminary distribution location, run the tests, and then provide their signatures. The public keys for these signatures should be included in the ASF LDAP instance through id.apache.org. (A list of the current public keys for members of the Subversion PMC is autogenerated from LDAP each day.)
Signing a tarball means that you assert certain things about it. When announcing your signature, indicate in the mail what steps you've taken to verify that the tarball is correct, such as verifying the contents against the proper tag in the repository. Running make check over all RA layers and FS backends is also a good idea, as well as building and testing the bindings.
To obtain the release candidate, check out a working copy of https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion. Verify the release manager's PGP signatures on the tarballs. release.py automates this step:
release.py get-keys release.py check-sigs 1.7.8 --target /path/to/dist/working/copy
After having verified, extracted, and tested the tarball, you should sign by creating an armored detached signature using gpg. To append your signature to a .asc file, use a command like:
gpg -ba -o - subversion-1.7.0-rc4.tar.bz2 >> subversion-1.7.0-rc4.tar.bz2.ascThe release.py script can automate this step:
release.py sign-candidates --target /path/to/dist/dev/subversion/working/copy 1.7.0
After adding your signatures, commit the locally modified .asc files to the dist.apache.org repository.
If you've downloaded and tested a .tar.bz2 file, it is possible to sign a .tar.gz file with the same contents without having to download and test it separately. The trick is to extract the .bz2 file, and pack it using gzip like this:
bzip2 -cd subversion-1.3.0-rc4.tar.bz2 \ | gzip -9n > subversion-1.3.0-rc4.tar.gz
The resulting file should be identical to the file generated by the release manager, and thus can be signed as described above. To verify that the files are identical, you may use either the SHA1 checksums or the release manager's signature, both of which should be provided with the tarballs.
But, if the checksum is not identical it doesn't have to be the case that the file signature is wrong, or the file has been tampered with. It could very well be the case that you don't have an identical gzip version as the release manager.
After the tarballs are created, and all the signatures are created and validated, the release is ready for publication. This section outlines the steps needed to publish a Subversion release.
Subversion artifacts are distributed through the ASF mirror network. The source code download page automatically assists users in selecting mirrors closer to them. We usually host only the latest stable release for the supported release lines on the mirror network, while all previous Subversion releases are available in the archives.
Uploading releases to the mirrors is rather straight forward: the RM simply moves the tarballs, signatures and checksums from ^/dev/subversion to ^/release/subversion. There is a release.py subcommand that automates this step:
release.py move-to-dist 1.7.0It takes the mirrors up to 24 hours to get pick up the new release. The archive will also automatically pick up the release. While running move-to-dist will move the signature files committers are still able to commit new signatures to ^/release/subversion however it will take up to 24 hours for those signatures to mirror. Any such signatures cannot be included in the release announcement unless 24 hours have passed since they were committed.
At this point, the release may be publicly available, but its still a good idea to hold off on announcing it until after the mirrors have picked it up. After the 24 hour period has passed, giving the mirrors enough time to sync, the release manager will send the announcement and publish the changes to the Subversion website, as described below. It's also a good time to reexamine the dist/ directory from above, and clean out any old releases; only the most recent release for the supported release lines should be in that directory. The mirrors will eventually remove the older releases, but they will continue to remain available in the archives. (You can clean old releases using release.py clean-dist.)
Write a release announcement, referring to previous ones for guidance. Remember to include the URL and SHA1 checksums in the announcement! The release.py write-announcement subcommand creates a template announcement which can be customized for specific circumstances. If the community support levels are changing with this release be sure to update the recommended_release variable in release.py before using it to generate the announcement.
The subject line of the announcement email should be of the form [ANNOUNCE] Apache Subversion 1.9.0-rc1 released. If the release fixes security issues, add a [SECURITY] subject tag as well, and CC firstname.lastname@example.org on the announcement email (see next paragraph).
Send the announcement to dev@, users@, and announce@ lists (including email@example.com for 1.7.x and newer releases), from your @apache.org email address. (Mail to announce@ will bounce if sent from any other address.) Ensure that your mailer doesn't wrap the URLs over multiple lines.
NOTE: We announce the release before updating the website since the website update links to the release announcement sent to the announce@ mailing list.
Update the topics in various Subversion-related IRC channels, such as #svn and #svn-dev on freenode.
It is then time for the release manager to go and enjoy his $favorite_beverage.
A new release branch is created for each new major and minor release. So, for example, a new release branch is created when preparing to release version 2.0.0, or version 1.3.0. However, when preparing to release 1.3.1 (a patch-version increment), the release branch created at the time of 1.3.0 is used.
If you are preparing for a patch release, then there is no release branch to create. You just pick up where you left off in the current minor version series release branch.
The time at which a new release branch needs to be created is fuzzy at best. Generally, we have a soft schedule of releasing a new minor version every 6 months. So, approximately 4 months after the previous minor release is a good time to start proposing a branch. But remember that this is flexible, depending on what features are being developed.
Once people agree that a new release branch should be made, the Release Manager creates it with the following procedure (substitute A.B with the version you're preparing, eg. 1.3, or 2.0):
Review the Roadmap. Should any of the outstanding items be addressed before branching?
Review the incumbent stable branch's STATUS file for outstanding -0 and -1 votes. Was code that is going to be included in the new branch objected to? (Even if yes, that should not block branching, but discussion should be started in order to resolve the issue before rolling release branches.)
Do any tree-wide, mechanical changes. (Non-mechanical changes should have happened earlier to allow for review.) This eases merging later. Examples include stripping trailing whitespace and plugging error leaks and fixing invariants in C headers (another case) and code search and replace. (This is also a good time to do other periodical housekeeping tasks such as static analysis.)
Create the new release branch with a server-side copy:
svn cp ^/subversion/trunk \ ^/subversion/branches/A.B.x \ -m "Create the A.B.x release branch."
Edit subversion/include/svn_version.h on trunk and increment the version numbers there. Do not commit these changes yet.
The version number on trunk always reflects the major/minor version that will immediately follow the one for which you just created a branch (eg. 2.1.0 for the 2.0.x branch, and 1.4.0 for the 1.3.x branch).
Edit /subversion/trunk/subversion/bindings/javahl/src/org/apache/subversion/javahl/NativeResources.java on trunk and increment the version numbers in init(). Do not commit these changes yet.
Edit build/run_tests.py and subversion/tests/cmdline/svntest/main.py on trunk and increment SVN_VER_MINOR. Do not commit these changes yet.
Edit CHANGES on trunk to introduce a new section for the upcoming release if it is not already there, and also a new section for the next minor release to be made in the future. Each section starts with:
Version A.B.0 (?? ??? 20XX, from /branches/A.B.x) http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/tags/A.B.0
Leave the release date blank for now. It will remain this way until rolling time.
Commit these changes with a log message something like the following:
Increment the trunk version number, and introduce a new CHANGES section for the upcoming A.B.0 release. * subversion/include/svn_version.h: Increment version number. * subversion/tests/cmdline/svntest/main.py (SVN_VER_MINOR), build/run_tests.py (SVN_VER_MINOR): Increment version number. * CHANGES: New section for A.B.0.
Create a new STATUS file on the release branch.
Ask someone with appropriate access to add the A.B.x branch to the svn-role mergebot.
Once a release branch has been created, no development ever takes place there. The only changes permitted are ones made to various bookkeeping files such as STATUS, and changes merged in from trunk. In rare cases, a feature branch may be created from the A.B.x branch to address issues specific to the release branch (for example, to fix a bug that does not affect trunk).
The protocol used to accept or refuse the merging of changes from trunk is of interest to all Subversion developers, and as such is documented in the release stabilization section.
The CHANGES file is the project changelog file. Before a release, it must be brought up to date to list all changes since the last release.
For patch-releases, this is fairly easy: you just need to walk through the commit logs for the branch since the last "golden" revision, and note all interesting merges. For minor and major releases, this is more complex: you need to traverse the commit log on trunk since the last release branch was forked, and make note of all changes there. It's the same procedure, but a lot longer, and somewhat more complex as it involves filtering out changesets that have already been backported to previous release branches and released from there.
Remember that CHANGES should always be edited on trunk and then merged over to the release branch(es) when necessary. It is very important that all changes of all releases be documented in the CHANGES file on trunk, both for future reference and so that future release branches contain the sum of all previous change logs.
Keep the bullet point for each change concise, preferably no more than one line long. Sometimes that can be a challenge, but it really adds to the overall readability of the document. Think to yourself: If it takes more than one line to describe, maybe I'm getting too detailed?
Run svn log --stop-on-copy ^/subversion/branches/A.B.x. This should give you every change ever made to the A.B.x line, including backports made to the A.B.x branch. You then need to remove logs of changes that have already been released in micro releases of the previous major/minor branch. Run svn log -q --stop-on-copy on the previous release branch, and then write a script to parse the revnums and remove them from your primary log output. (Karl and Ben used to use emacs macros to do that, but suggest that we write a more general script.) (Update: nowadays, svn mergeinfo --show-revs eligible should simplify obtaining the set of relevant revisions—use the minor branch as the source, and the previous minor branch as the target.)
Read that log from oldest to newest, summarizing points as you go. The trick is to know what level of detail to write at: you don't want to mention every tiny little commit, but you don't want to be too general either. Set your filter-level by reading through a few pages of the CHANGES file before starting on the new section, just to keep things consistent.
As part of release stabilization, CHANGES should be updated as bug fixes are ported to the release branch. Generally, if you merge a revision or group of revisions (i.e., an item in STATUS) to the release branch, you should also add an item to CHANGES on trunk, following the same guidelines outlined above. This list will then be merged to the release branch when a patch release is made.