glibc 2.25 development --- 46 days to freeze.

glibc 2.25 development --- 46 days to freeze.

[Carlos O'Donell]

Community,

We have 46 days of active development until the freeze for glibc 2.25 starts.

We have 77 days until the release of glibc 2.25.

Make the most of it :-)

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: glibc 2.25 development --- 46 days to freeze.

[Jochen Hein]

Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> writes:

> We have 46 days of active development until the freeze for glibc 2.25 starts.

Can we get a snapshot of the current pot-file out to the translators? We
missed the last two releases, so I guess we need some time to catch up.
We can (and should) refresh the pot file after the freeze to translate
the last (hopefully few) messages before the release.

Thanks!

Jochen

-- 
The only problem with troubleshooting is that the trouble shoots back.

Re: glibc 2.25 development --- 46 days to freeze.

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On Wednesday 16 November 2016 11:26 AM, Jochen Hein wrote:
> Can we get a snapshot of the current pot-file out to the translators? We
> missed the last two releases, so I guess we need some time to catch up.
> We can (and should) refresh the pot file after the freeze to translate
> the last (hopefully few) messages before the release.

I think that is a good idea.  In fact, would it be more productive to
tweak the current workflow a bit so that translators can pull directly
from git instead of using tarballs?  I am referring to the libc.pot
workflow documented in our Release wiki[1] that requires the release
manager to upload a tarball and then email coordinator AT
translationproject DOT org.  Instead, the glibc release manager could
just send out the email when they update libc.pot and translators can
pull from git.  I reckon this could even be automated in a git
post-commit hook.

Thoughts?

Siddhesh

[1] https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Release

Re: glibc 2.25 development --- 46 days to freeze.

[Jochen Hein]

Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> writes:

> On Wednesday 16 November 2016 11:26 AM, Jochen Hein wrote:
>> Can we get a snapshot of the current pot-file out to the translators? We
>> missed the last two releases, so I guess we need some time to catch up.
>> We can (and should) refresh the pot file after the freeze to translate
>> the last (hopefully few) messages before the release.
>
> I think that is a good idea.  In fact, would it be more productive to
> tweak the current workflow a bit so that translators can pull directly
> from git instead of using tarballs?  I am referring to the libc.pot
> workflow documented in our Release wiki[1] that requires the release
> manager to upload a tarball and then email coordinator AT
> translationproject DOT org.  Instead, the glibc release manager could
> just send out the email when they update libc.pot and translators can
> pull from git.  I reckon this could even be automated in a git
> post-commit hook.
>
> Thoughts?

I'm fine with it - usually a translater has no need to look at the
sources. And since tarballs tend to get/be big it might be ok to check
only some strings in cgit or something else.

The translationproject has this for sending out a new .pot-file
[http://translationproject.org/html/maintainers.html]:

,----
| Announcing
| 
| To announce a new POT file, merely send the URL of a packaged
| distribution of your program to
| <coordinator@translationproject.org>. Best is to use the string
| "DOMAIN-VERSION.pot" somewhere in the subject line of your mail. The
| Translation Project will process a POT file only once, so another
| submission must use a newer VERSION. The distribution tarball pointed to
| by the URL does not have to be official, it does not even have to
| compile: its goal is merely to provide finer context for strings to be
| translated, in case translators need such references.
| 
| The very first time you submit a POT file, the Translation Project also
| needs to know which email address to use for notifications, and if you
| want translated PO files sent in full to you or a mere URL pointing to
| them.
| 
| You may submit new POT files as often as you want. You might wish to
| avoid exhausting translation teams, but we have never yet received a
| complaint. So don't hesitate submitting it if just a few weeks after the
| previous one you have a new release. 
`----

Custom in the past has been to refer to the tarball in the announcement,
but at least we can check with the translation coordinator - hence the
CC:

Comments?

Jochen

> [1] https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Release

-- 
The only problem with troubleshooting is that the trouble shoots back.

Re: glibc 2.25 development --- 46 days to freeze.

[Benno Schulenberg]

> Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> writes:
>> In fact, would it be more productive to tweak the current workflow
>> a bit so that translators can pull directly from git instead of
>> using tarballs?

The translators themselves don't use tarballs, they only use PO files.
The TP extracts the POT files from a tarball, remerges the existing PO
files at the TP against them, and delivers these newer PO files to the
translators.  Translators thus only need to have access to email and
an editor -- nothing else.  You want them to have git installed?  And
to know how to handle it?  Sure, quite a few will know.  But it would
break their workflow, and mine.

So, if it's not too much trouble, please keep providing a URL of a
snapshot tarball on alpha.gnu.org (or somewhere else) and send that
URL to the coordinator at the TP, so that I can just run my two or
three scripts, and all runs smoothly.

Benno

Re: glibc 2.25 development --- 46 days to freeze.

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On Sunday 20 November 2016 05:04 PM, Benno Schulenberg wrote:
> The translators themselves don't use tarballs, they only use PO files.
> The TP extracts the POT files from a tarball, remerges the existing PO
> files at the TP against them, and delivers these newer PO files to the
> translators.  Translators thus only need to have access to email and
> an editor -- nothing else.  You want them to have git installed?  And
> to know how to handle it?  Sure, quite a few will know.  But it would
> break their workflow, and mine.
> 
> So, if it's not too much trouble, please keep providing a URL of a
> snapshot tarball on alpha.gnu.org (or somewhere else) and send that
> URL to the coordinator at the TP, so that I can just run my two or
> three scripts, and all runs smoothly.

Sure, it is no trouble at all.  I only wanted to know if there was
interest in tweaking this workflow further than just generating libc.pot
multiple times.  I am perfectly fine adapting to the existing workflow.

Siddhesh

Re: glibc 2.25 development --- 46 days to freeze.

[Nix]

On 15 Nov 2016, Carlos O'Donell told this:

> Community,
>
> We have 46 days of active development until the freeze for glibc 2.25 starts.
>
> We have 77 days until the release of glibc 2.25.
>
> Make the most of it :-)

FWIW I'll be posting a new stack-protector series (rebased atop the
ifunc changes, as requested) as soon as its tests pass.

So, assuming those pass, it should be able to get into 2.25.

-- 
NULL && (void)

Re: glibc 2.25 development --- 46 days to freeze.

[Florian Weimer]

On 11/21/2016 01:17 AM, Nix wrote:
> On 15 Nov 2016, Carlos O'Donell told this:
>
>> Community,
>>
>> We have 46 days of active development until the freeze for glibc 2.25 starts.
>>
>> We have 77 days until the release of glibc 2.25.
>>
>> Make the most of it :-)
>
> FWIW I'll be posting a new stack-protector series (rebased atop the
> ifunc changes, as requested) as soon as its tests pass.

I'll happy to re-review them.

Thanks,
Florian

Re: glibc 2.25 development --- 46 days to freeze.

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On Wednesday 16 November 2016 11:26 AM, Jochen Hein wrote:
> Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> writes:
> 
>> We have 46 days of active development until the freeze for glibc 2.25 starts.
> 
> Can we get a snapshot of the current pot-file out to the translators? We
> missed the last two releases, so I guess we need some time to catch up.
> We can (and should) refresh the pot file after the freeze to translate
> the last (hopefully few) messages before the release.

Carlos, are you OK with me doing this or would there be any issues on
the glibc front that I am not aware of?  If it is OK, I'll generate it
this weekend.

Siddhesh

Re: glibc 2.25 development --- 46 days to freeze.

[Joseph Myers]

On Thu, 1 Dec 2016, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:

> On Wednesday 16 November 2016 11:26 AM, Jochen Hein wrote:
> > Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> writes:
> > 
> >> We have 46 days of active development until the freeze for glibc 2.25 starts.
> > 
> > Can we get a snapshot of the current pot-file out to the translators? We
> > missed the last two releases, so I guess we need some time to catch up.
> > We can (and should) refresh the pot file after the freeze to translate
> > the last (hopefully few) messages before the release.
> 
> Carlos, are you OK with me doing this or would there be any issues on
> the glibc front that I am not aware of?  If it is OK, I'll generate it
> this weekend.

*Don't* create an annotated tag for the version used for this (annotated 
tags have side effects that aren't wanted except for actual releases).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: glibc 2.25 development --- 46 days to freeze.

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 12/01/2016 11:03 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2016, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> 
>> On Wednesday 16 November 2016 11:26 AM, Jochen Hein wrote:
>>> Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> We have 46 days of active development until the freeze for glibc 2.25 starts.
>>>
>>> Can we get a snapshot of the current pot-file out to the translators? We
>>> missed the last two releases, so I guess we need some time to catch up.
>>> We can (and should) refresh the pot file after the freeze to translate
>>> the last (hopefully few) messages before the release.
>>
>> Carlos, are you OK with me doing this or would there be any issues on
>> the glibc front that I am not aware of?  If it is OK, I'll generate it
>> this weekend.
> 
> *Don't* create an annotated tag for the version used for this (annotated 
> tags have side effects that aren't wanted except for actual releases).

Is this just a "general warning?" The release process does not say to use
annotated tags. We made that mistake once and then it was removed from the
release documentation.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: glibc 2.25 development --- 46 days to freeze.

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 12/01/2016 08:32 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 November 2016 11:26 AM, Jochen Hein wrote:
>> Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>>> We have 46 days of active development until the freeze for glibc 2.25 starts.
>>
>> Can we get a snapshot of the current pot-file out to the translators? We
>> missed the last two releases, so I guess we need some time to catch up.
>> We can (and should) refresh the pot file after the freeze to translate
>> the last (hopefully few) messages before the release.
> 
> Carlos, are you OK with me doing this or would there be any issues on
> the glibc front that I am not aware of?  If it is OK, I'll generate it
> this weekend.

I am perfectly OK with anyone helping with the release process.

Do you have registered gpg keys to upload for glibc?

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: glibc 2.25 development --- 46 days to freeze.

[Joseph Myers]

On Fri, 2 Dec 2016, Carlos O'Donell wrote:

> Is this just a "general warning?" The release process does not say to use
> annotated tags. We made that mistake once and then it was removed from the
> release documentation.

Yes, it's a general warning based on experience.  Annotated tags should be 
used for releases themselves, but not otherwise (in particular not for 
translation snapshots).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: glibc 2.25 development --- 46 days to freeze.

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 12/02/2016 10:56 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Dec 2016, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> 
>> Is this just a "general warning?" The release process does not say to use
>> annotated tags. We made that mistake once and then it was removed from the
>> release documentation.
> 
> Yes, it's a general warning based on experience.  Annotated tags should be 
> used for releases themselves, but not otherwise (in particular not for 
> translation snapshots).
 
Agreed. Thank you for the reminder.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: glibc 2.25 development --- 46 days to freeze.

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On Friday 02 December 2016 09:24 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> Do you have registered gpg keys to upload for glibc?

I'm not sure what you mean by registered, but I have uploaded my gpg key
to a keyserver:

https://keys.fedoraproject.org/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x79C43DFBF1CF2187

Siddhesh

Re: glibc 2.25 development --- 46 days to freeze.

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On Friday 02 December 2016 09:24 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> I am perfectly OK with anyone helping with the release process.

Oh BTW, I did volunteer to manage the 2.25 release, in case that was
missed.  I didn't get a confirmation from you or anyone but I assumed
that was an agreement :)

Siddhesh

Re: glibc 2.25 development --- 46 days to freeze.

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 974 bytes --]

On 02 Dec 2016 10:54, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 12/01/2016 08:32 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> > On Wednesday 16 November 2016 11:26 AM, Jochen Hein wrote:
> >> Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> We have 46 days of active development until the freeze for glibc 2.25 starts.
> >>
> >> Can we get a snapshot of the current pot-file out to the translators? We
> >> missed the last two releases, so I guess we need some time to catch up.
> >> We can (and should) refresh the pot file after the freeze to translate
> >> the last (hopefully few) messages before the release.
> > 
> > Carlos, are you OK with me doing this or would there be any issues on
> > the glibc front that I am not aware of?  If it is OK, I'll generate it
> > this weekend.
> 
> I am perfectly OK with anyone helping with the release process.

can we automate this ?   what if we add a cronjob that just uploads
the pot-file from master every two months ?
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: glibc 2.25 development --- 46 days to freeze.

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On Saturday 17 December 2016 04:26 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> can we automate this ?   what if we add a cronjob that just
> uploads the pot-file from master every two months ?

Yeah, that is how I intend to spend this holiday.

Siddhesh
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQExBAEBCAAbBQJYVMt8FBxzaWRkaGVzaEBnb3RwbHQub3JnAAoJEHnEPfvxzyGH
gDQH+wVexWovJTYLvL/P2o0MlcESjzTILHgN66+qEI1o8KeEo0UAI0Dvm44I+PYJ
blL9VtvLZd0WV5hUZ3zWNQ+xEaZlwVWcOzwH2q2pJEIrBW3e85kV8Pjwe8J6MmSa
RKJTJpDNKiIjL7auNaYGRWwq6kXgFw3qEazHibQrq4pChI1y97RMbBvd+2+UrPX6
9unvqS4F39+gKdQRo69LCVkcbxYh38F2Z5Zn3XcWExLAoN9C/A6tm/4lQzNFkxkh
LRBn9298PsLXd0nef9CYOa6p5RUDRb6UaF+Np16oEbZQMR5psVD+WKew00x3sLSD
xCH2VAB+PtDC6PV6daleugC9kZU=
=FWM+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: glibc 2.25 development --- 46 days to freeze.

[Zack Weinberg]

On 11/15/2016 03:55 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> Community,
> 
> We have 46 days of active development until the freeze for glibc 2.25 starts.
> 
> We have 77 days until the release of glibc 2.25.
> 
> Make the most of it :-)

I'm out of town from today until after the freeze.  If any of my
outstanding patches are desired for 2.25, please feel free to commit
them yourselves, with or without modifications.

zw

Re: glibc 2.25 development --- 46 days to freeze.

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 12/17/2016 10:12 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On 11/15/2016 03:55 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> Community,
>>
>> We have 46 days of active development until the freeze for glibc 2.25 starts.
>>
>> We have 77 days until the release of glibc 2.25.
>>
>> Make the most of it :-)
> 
> I'm out of town from today until after the freeze.  If any of my
> outstanding patches are desired for 2.25, please feel free to commit
> them yourselves, with or without modifications.

Thank you for that allowance.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: glibc 2.25 development --- 46 days to freeze.

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 12/02/2016 01:18 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Friday 02 December 2016 09:24 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> I am perfectly OK with anyone helping with the release process.
> 
> Oh BTW, I did volunteer to manage the 2.25 release, in case that was
> missed.  I didn't get a confirmation from you or anyone but I assumed
> that was an agreement :)

Authorized.

Please add yourself to the Release pages.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: glibc 2.25 development --- 46 days to freeze.

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 12/02/2016 01:15 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Friday 02 December 2016 09:24 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> Do you have registered gpg keys to upload for glibc?
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by registered, but I have uploaded my gpg key
> to a keyserver:
> 
> https://keys.fedoraproject.org/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x79C43DFBF1CF2187

That is not sufficient.

You must register your key with the FSF servers to do the upload:
https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Automated-Upload-Registration.html#Automated-Upload-Registration

While I think _you_ should definitely get you key authorized to do
uploads, I don't think that *all* release managers should need to
go through the process of registering their keys. For example I think
all the distro maintainers should be able to run through a release
manager cycle without having to have their GPG key registered with
the FSF to do the upload. I think a core of senior developers can
do all the uploads as required. I'm not saying this to exclude anyone,
but just limit (a) the risk of everyone being to upload a release and
(b) the annoyance of having to go through that process and maintain
a key.

Thoughts?

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: glibc 2.25 development --- 46 days to freeze.

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On Tuesday 20 December 2016 04:35 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> You must register your key with the FSF servers to do the upload:
> https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Automated-Upload-Registration.html#Automated-Upload-Registration

It seemed like I would have to be authorized by an existing maintainer,
but I've gone ahead and sent the request anyway with you in cc in case
authorization is required.

Siddhesh