Re: Making releases

[Reuben Thomas]

On 16 March 2011 19:59, Jim Meyering <address@hidden> wrote:
> Reuben Thomas wrote:
>>
>> 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.

Fine, provided I can still just use one hook. Would I still call it
"release-hook"?

> Actually, there's already the release-prep-hook variable.

Sure, but announcing is not release-prep. In particular, the rule
should only be executed if the release and upload succeeded.

>>> 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.

No, I meant what I said. I prefer a non-interactive process, but in
this case, at least one bit of interaction is needed, namely typing
one's GPG passphrase.

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

Me too. What I was saying is that I'd like to have a target, which
I'll call "reuben-stable" for the sake of argument, such that

make reuben-stable

does the same as stable, plus uploading and sending announcements.
(Uploading involves a prompt, of necessity.)

I agree with Ralf that "Y or N" prompts should not be part of that,
and I retract my suggestion that the GPG prompt could stand in for
such a confirmation prompt.

-- 
http://rrt.sc3d.org