[Stk] New release and maintenance

Stephen Sinclair radarsat1 at gmail.com
Tue Aug 9 08:42:46 PDT 2016 

I did a couple of diffs and found that the commit best matching the
tarball is fb50d69e084.  (The one before the latest PR merge.)

I did an annotated tag with the release comments and put the commit
date back to Feb 22  (same as the commit.)

Should be good now.
https://github.com/thestk/stk/releases

Steve


On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Stephen Sinclair <radarsat1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, didn't realize that 4.5.2 shouldn't have happened at all.. I've
> deleted the tag.  So we just need to put 4.5.1 where it goes.
>
> Steve
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Gary Scavone <gary at ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> Hi Ariel,
>>
>> First, the CCRMA website is for “users.”  The GitHub site is for developers.
>> The CCRMA site includes compiled versions of the documentation and the
>> configure script, while the GitHub repo does not.  It is impossible that
>> having the two sites can cause any problems, since the only time that the
>> CCRMA site is updates is when I make a new release on GitHub.
>>
>> I am currently away visiting family and on holiday all next week, so I don’t
>> know if I will have time to investigate what happened with the dates on the
>> repo (as well as why there is a release 4.5.2, which shouldn’t have been
>> made without my approval). But all that needs to happen is that the  GitHub
>> repo be fixed (hopefully, it is just a tagging issue as Stephen has
>> suggested).
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> —gary
>>
>> On Aug 9, 2016, at 7:15 AM, Ariel Elkin <arielelkin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Gary,
>>
>> Following what you've described I've taken a closer at the code, but I don't
>> know what caused the discrepancy.
>>
>> The root of the problem is that the code tarball and the changelog are being
>> duplicated on the CCRMA download page and on GitHub. This is evidently
>> creating more problems than it's solving.
>>
>> I've explained why I believe the CCRMA download page
>> (https://ccrma.stanford.edu/software/stk/download.html) is redundant, with
>> all the development and releases happening on GitHub.
>>
>> So could we have the CCRMA download page simply link to the GitHub
>> repository page? This would imply moving the changelog to a CHANGELOG file
>> we'd add to the repo.
>>
>> If we agree to this, like I said, I'd be happy to take care of releases,
>> which requires a bit more in-depth knowledge of git, and this kind of issue
>> wouldn't happen again.
>>
>> Ariel
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Stephen Sinclair <radarsat1 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> It looks to me like the release tags got moved or were placed wrong
>>> somehow.. At least they don't seem to be on the release commits.  e.g.
>>> 4.5.1 appears on a commit named "Rename SKINI.msg..." but much later
>>> in the history there is a commit called "Lots of documentation updates
>>> in advance of new release 4.5.1"
>>>
>>> I don't know how it happened, but we should put them back to where
>>> they go.  It can be done using "git tag -d" to delete the tags and
>>> "git tag" on the correct commits and then "git push --force --tags".
>>> Do you know off-hand which commits should be tagged 4.5.1 and 4.5.2?
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Gary Scavone <gary at ccrma.stanford.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Hi Ariel,
>>> >
>>> > Something is very strange.  I made a new release (4.5.1) of STK in 22
>>> > February 2016. My process (similar to what I have done for RtAudio and
>>> > RtMidi) should have been to first create a release in github and then
>>> > upload
>>> > that to the CCRMA site (I don’t maintain two separate versions).  If you
>>> > look at what the release notes say, they are the same.  But for some
>>> > reason,
>>> > the date on the release in github says 2 May 2014!!  And it looks like
>>> > you
>>> > made a release (4.5.2) on 12 May 2014.  That is simply weird.
>>> >
>>> > To be honest, I don’t use git enough to easily (quickly) go back and
>>> > figure
>>> > out what happened but something got messed up in the recent past.  Why
>>> > does
>>> > it show you making a release 4.5.2?
>>> >
>>> > Stephen, do you have any insight on this?
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> >
>>> > —gary
>>> >
>>> > On Aug 8, 2016, at 6:34 AM, Ariel Elkin <arielelkin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi Gary,
>>> >
>>> > Then it looks like there might be a discrepancy in the STK's
>>> > distribution
>>> > channels...
>>> >
>>> > On the CCRMA website, the current release is 4.5.1 and dates from
>>> > February
>>> > 2016
>>> > https://ccrma.stanford.edu/software/stk/download.html
>>> >
>>> > On GitHub, the current release is 4.5.2 and is actually two years old:
>>> > https://github.com/thestk/stk/releases
>>> >
>>> > Messy. We're forking ourselves. Must be be tidied up.
>>> >
>>> > Can we agree that there can only be one and only one canonical version
>>> > of
>>> > the STK? User should always legitimately assume that all distribution
>>> > channels serve exactly the same copy of the software.
>>> >
>>> > The first thing we should do is figure out the differences between the
>>> > codebase on the CCRMA website and the codebase on GitHub:
>>> >
>>> > Download both:
>>> > https://github.com/thestk/stk/archive/master.zip
>>> > http://ccrma.stanford.edu/software/stk/release/stk-4.5.1.tar.gz
>>> >
>>> > Unzip them, then run:
>>> > $opendiff ~/Downloads/stk-master ~/Downloads/stk-4.5.1
>>> >
>>> > you'll notice that the delta is slight to the extent, I believe, that it
>>> > would be justified to discard the CCRMA version:
>>> > * .gitignore added to GitHub version
>>> > * CCRMA version spells "CoreMIDI" as "CoreMidi" in configure.ac,
>>> > src/RtMidi.cpp, and in doc/doxygen (CoreMIDI should be preferred as
>>> > acronyms
>>> > are capitalised)
>>> > * CCRMA version adds doc/html (redundant as they're available online)
>>> > * CCRMA version adds projects/examples/libMakefile (redundant as GitHub
>>> > also
>>> > has it as libMakefile.in in same directory)
>>> >
>>> > Clearly, 4.5.1 on CCRMA has been superseded by 4.5.2 on GitHub.
>>> >
>>> > Moving forwards:
>>> >
>>> > * I believe that the code on the CCRMA website should mirror the one on
>>> > GitHub, because all the development, issue-tracking, and pull-requests
>>> > is
>>> > done on GitHub. The code is developed on GitHub, it should originate
>>> > from
>>> > GitHub, the CCRMA website can then mirror it (or just link to it). I
>>> > think
>>> > we can discard the CCRMA version, and have the download page
>>> > (https://ccrma.stanford.edu/software/stk/download.html) simply link to
>>> > the
>>> > GitHub repo (the changelog is useful and can be transferred to a
>>> > CHANGELOG
>>> > file we'd add to the repo)
>>> >
>>> > * Given that 55 commits have accumulated since GitHub's 4.5.1 release
>>> > two
>>> > years ago, we should make a new release on GitHub. (On a general note,
>>> > every
>>> > version number change should be a release, but making a release actually
>>> > only involves pushing a tag to the repository, GitHub automatically
>>> > creates
>>> > the release for us).
>>> >
>>> > Also, I'd be happy to manage new releases and can push 4.6.0 now with
>>> > the 55
>>> > commits that have accumulated :-)
>>> >
>>> > Thoughts?
>>> >
>>> > Regarding issues, many are indeed stagnant, I'll ping the owners so that
>>> > we
>>> > can move forwards with them or close them.
>>> >
>>> > Ariel
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Gary Scavone <gary at ccrma.stanford.edu>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi Ariel,
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks for the offer to help.  The current release is only about 6
>>> >> months
>>> >> old, which is fairly “new” from my perspective.  And unless I’m missing
>>> >> something, there has only been one merged pull request since then.  The
>>> >> two
>>> >> pending pull requests have been replied to but I didn’t get subsequent
>>> >> feedback from the contributors.  My feeling is that #58 is not a bug
>>> >> but
>>> >> rather based on the contributor using the class in an incorrect way.
>>> >>
>>> >> There are several “issues", but I don’t know when I would be able to
>>> >> address them.  In general, if someone wants something fixed, they
>>> >> should fix
>>> >> it themselves and then submit a pull request.
>>> >>
>>> >> There have been a number of updates to the RtMidi and RtAudio classes,
>>> >> but
>>> >> again, I’m not sure they are significant enough to substantiate a new
>>> >> release.
>>> >>
>>> >> Regards,
>>> >>
>>> >> —gary
>>> >>
>>> >> On Aug 3, 2016, at 8:36 AM, Ariel Elkin <arielelkin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi all,
>>> >>
>>> >> Several bug fixes and improvements have been accumulating since v4.5.2,
>>> >> it'd be good to draft a new release.
>>> >>
>>> >> Also, two pull requests need to be reviewed:
>>> >> https://github.com/thestk/stk/pulls
>>> >>
>>> >> And issues have also been accumulating:
>>> >> https://github.com/thestk/stk/issues
>>> >>
>>> >> As far as I'm concerned, I can (as always) provide all the support
>>> >> needed
>>> >> for iOS, but I don't have (at this stage) the required background
>>> >> knowledge
>>> >> for maintaining an STK project on OS X, nor a Linux or Windows machine
>>> >> for
>>> >> development.
>>> >>
>>> >> So I think it would be good if we clarify who is responsible for
>>> >> dealing
>>> >> with new issues, pull requests, and overall maintenance. This would
>>> >> make
>>> >> maintenance and development more efficient in the long term.
>>> >>
>>> >> Ariel
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> Stk mailing list
>>> >> Stk at ccrma.stanford.edu
>>> >> https://cm-mail.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/stk
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>>
>>

More information about the Stk mailing list