Git-secret: release v0.2.4

[joshrabinowitz]

v0.2.4 has been merged but needs to be released. What needs to happen for the release?

Happy to help

[sobolevn]

I guess we should fix CI before releasing the new version.
Right now it uses so many tools! Docker, ansible, kitchen, so it is almost impossible to maintain them together.

I think dropping everything right now is the only way to go.
So, we need to specify envs and gnupg versions we want to test.

I think, that we can test only two envs for now: fedora and debian.
And two gnupg versions: 1 and 2. What gives us just 4 different setups.

Later we can think of better testing strategies.
@hurricanehrndz what do you think about it?

[joshrabinowitz]

I've fixed the CI builds and tests in #148.
The fixes were:

• use pip to install pyOpenSSL ndg-httpsclient pyasn1 in .ci/before_script.sh
• use ansible 2.5.0 in .kitchen.yml and as the default ansible version in .ci/ansible-setup.sh

[notjames]

Did you fix the VERSION bug? Just curious.

[joshrabinowitz]

@notjames
I fixed it moving forward, but not retroactively for 0.2.3.
You can see the version here: https://github.com/sobolevn/git-secret/blob/master/src/version.sh

[joshrabinowitz]

See also: #120 regarding deploy step being ignored

[simbo1905]

Our team has spent a few hours with two macos and two ubuntu users working out compatibility issues. The macos version installed by homebrew says it's v0.2.2 when it is v0.2.3 and inserts colons that the ubuntu release does not recognize. We almost gave up. Releasing v0.2.4 would hopefully fix git secret for heterogeneous teams. Any chance of that happening soon? We can help test.

[joshrabinowitz]

@simbo1905 thanks for your note.
The big blocker on getting 0.2.4 out are the issues in #120 .
We could use some help in getting a new release out.

[simbo1905]

Fixing the other things uncovered #189

[simbo1905]

all fixed on my fork https://travis-ci.org/simbo1905/git-secret/builds/389940226

[simbo1905]

The deb package deployed! 🎉

https://bintray.com/sobolevn/deb/git-secret

The rpm didn't

https://travis-ci.org/sobolevn/git-secret

[simbo1905]

What are the steps to deploy to brew for MacOS?

[simbo1905]

191 is the fix for RPM deployment.

[simbo1905]

RPM is deployed https://bintray.com/sobolevn/rpm/git-secret

So do we now need a brew release to close this?

[joshrabinowitz]

@simbo1905

The page http://git-secret.io/installation mentions homebrew, deb, and rpm, so I'd say we do need a brew release to close this.

Do we want to update the CHANGELOG.md file more?

Also probably we should consider making the 'github release' a prereq to closing this issue.

@sobolevn anything else you want to see done as part of this issue?

[sobolevn]

Yeap, brew is a manual process. But we can submit a patch to homebrew repo after the package is released.

Yes, a github release and a few notes about the latest fixes to the CHANGELOG.md would be great.

[simbo1905]

@sobolevn When you do the manual brew release for 0.2.4 add the detailed commands to CONTRIBUTING.md and I will try to find some time to automate the process. I have added issue #195

[simbo1905]

This ruby project generates a change log https://github.com/github-changelog-generator/github-changelog-generator perhaps we should be running that on the CI master? Added this into #195

[joshrabinowitz]

I'd say for this release we should continue maintaining CHANGELOG.md manually.

[simbo1905]

Sounds good. Upon reflection we may have to be very disciplined about PR merge commit messages for a tool to work well. Lets keep any eye on that during PR reviews.

[simbo1905]

@sobolevn grepping the codebase I don't see any solid hits about how brew is done manually to install it. make install bombs on my macos. can you please give me some hints as to what you to do make a brew package?

[sobolevn]

@simbo1905 this code is located in the brew repo: https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/blob/master/Formula/git-secret.rb

 def install
    system "make", "build"
    system "bash", "utils/install.sh", prefix
  end

[simbo1905]

@sobolevn

$ make clean
$ make build
$ utils/install.sh /usr/local
cp: /Users/Shared/git-secret/utils/bin/*: No such file or directory
$ ls -al /Users/Shared/git-secret/utils/bin/
total 0

[sobolevn]

@simbo1905 have you checked this PR that fixes this bug? https://github.com/sobolevn/git-secret/pull/203

[joshrabinowitz]

@simbo1905 @sobolevn I think we should call 0.2.4 done as of now (10PM GMT june 13th 2018) and make a release.

I've set up a 'project' https://github.com/sobolevn/git-secret/projects/1 (release 0.2.4) for this purpose. Feel free to add/remove tasks from the project.

[joshrabinowitz]

I'm also fine with just tagging and releasing the current code as 0.2.5 (with mods to CHANGELOG.md as appropriate)

[joshrabinowitz]

@simbo1905 can you tag and release 0.2.5 (with all the needed changes for .deb, .rpms, brew packages, etc?)
Let me know if you want me to update CHANGELOG.md and/or bump version numbers.

[simbo1905]

🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

@ilovezfs has merged our brew PR! https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/commit/13e2ea914c0fbbc1a96df41bbf5bfabd7b35289b

@sobolevn we simply need you to update the latest release on github to be v0.2.4 to close this issue.

[sobolevn]

@simbo1905 which commit should be the latest to be included in the release?

[simbo1905]

This one https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/blob/13e2ea914c0fbbc1a96df41bbf5bfabd7b35289b/Formula/git-secret.rb#L13

If we add it to the release that brew is now patching (as per that line there) would it be idempotent and not break brew that "live" brew formula? Let's ask our friendly brew maintainer!

hey @ilovezfs can you help us out on this brew question. I put that patch into the formula. The formula references a release. @sobolevn is thinking to cheery pick it into the release and update the url that brew is patching. Is that safe?

[ilovezfs]

@simbo1905 that's not safe, no, as it will change the checksum of https://github.com/sobolevn/git-secret/archive/v0.2.4.tar.gz. What would be safe is releasing it as 0.2.4.1 or 0.2.5

[joshrabinowitz]

Do we consider 0.2.4 'released'?
Since it's not safe to try to fix 0.2.4, should we go for 0.2.5?

[simbo1905]

0.2.4 is released. I feel any actual code fixes should go out as 0.2.5. Any trivial documentation fixes or install fixes could go out as 0.2.4.1. I will close this issue and let's raise a new one for whatever comes next.