[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Making releases

From: Jim Meyering
Subject: Re: Making releases
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:59:52 +0100

Reuben Thomas wrote:
> On 16 March 2011 16:45, Jim Meyering <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Currently the gnupload command is emitted at the end of a successful
>> "make stable".  Just because that succeeded does not always mean I am
>> ready to release.
> OK, so an extra target is needed. I used to use "make release". This
> would seem to make sense to cover uploading and announcing the
> release.

There's already a target (or three) for that:
alpha, beta, stable.

Actually, there's already the release-prep-hook variable.
You could define it to e.g.,

    release-prep-hook = your-private-rule

and then add this to your cfg.mk:

    .PHONY: your-private-rule
    your-private-rule: release-prep

Then your package-specific commands would be run as part
of the already-required "make (alpha|beta|stable)" step,
right after the release-prep commands.

>> Do you feel like adding one?
> Sure. If you agreed with my idea of a "release" target, then it'd be a
> hook for that.
>> You should know better than to quote the man page
>> when there is texinfo documentation.
>> Read the info doc's description of --print-directory.
> The info manual says:
>   The `-s' or `--silent' flag to `make' prevents all echoing, as if
> all commands started with `@'.
> The documentation for --print-directory indeed says that -s stops its
> being turned on automatically, so that would seem to apply here, but
> without knowing about -w/--print-directory I would not have reached
> that conclusion. -s's paragraph needs an xref, I think. If you don't
> think I'm just wilfully misreading (or lazily underreading) the
> manual, I'll make a patch. (Using man pages in the first instance is
> definitely lazy on my part, but I want a single command to bring up
> relevant documentation. I've tried alias man=info in the past, as info
> handily falls back to man pages, but quickly gave up for a reason I've
> now forgotten; I'll try again.)

FWIW, I found that not by looking for the description of -s,
but by searching for the string "Leaving directory".
I typed "info make", and then "s" to search,
and typed "leaving dir" and RETURN at the prompt.

>> I'm not terribly gung-ho on making the process completely
>> non-interactive, so haven't pursued this, but if you find
>> a noninvasive way (or one that's universally accepted by maintainers who
>> use these rules) to make it do what you want, propose a patch.
> I'm not trying to make the process interactive, I'm trying to reduce

You meant s/interactive/non-interactive/, I suppose.

> the number of fixed commands one has to type. At the moment it goes:
> CMD1
> [do something]
> CMD2
> [do something else]
> ...
> where CMD1 and CMD2 are always the same, and, worse, I have to
> remember what they are and in what order to type them. I'm after a
> workflow that goes
> CMD1
> [do something]
> [do something else]
> ...
> with prompts as necessary. If we really disagree, it's probably over
> which commands naturally go together, and perhaps it's worth
> explaining that I prefer to have everything (distcheck, dist, stable)
> run again at the moment of release, Just In Case.

I generally prefer to avoid a recipe that prompts me for things.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]