Release 0.5

[hermione521]

Quote from last release manager: hopefully this time it can be 0.5!

[meteorcloudy]

In https://bazel-review.googlesource.com/#/c/9461/, bazel_bootstrap_distfile_test is disabled temporarily on Windows due to #2708

We need to test it manually before release 0.5

[hlopko]

Thanks for letting me know!

[meteorcloudy]

Please cherry-pick #2862 if it's not in 0.5. Our users depend on it.

[buchgr]

How is it decided / Who decides what gets into 0.5?

Having bcd2355 in 0.5 would also be nice, as this is a blocker for google/protobuf.

[hlopko]

It depends on when we will do the cut. We still wait for #1666, then we'll wait for a green ci, then we will do the cut. So bcd2355 will definitely be in the 0.5.

[buchgr]

Makes sense. thanks @mhlopko :)

[damienmg]

FTR 1fb094e needs to be in the release (regression detected inside google)

[damienmg]

I suggest cutting the release at f3ae88e since there is only a handful of breakage that needs investigation and no clear regression so far. We can cherry-pick change needed to stabilize the release.

[damienmg]

Note that the release testing is not very good so it would be good to run the docker test on a workstation and send the release branch as a gerrit code review to get bazel test coverage for it.

[buchgr]

@laszlocsomor just informed me that he found 4 very serious bugs in his protobuf patch [1]. We included this patch when updating protobuf in 2b49f67. So we should not include the updated protobuf in the new release (or at least not without updating to laszlo's latest patch).

It looks like the protobuf updated happened before f3ae88e but after 1fb094e.

[1] protocolbuffers/protobuf#2969

[rahul-malik]

@damienmg - Is 0.5 going to include #1666?

This would be very helpful for distribution of Bazel updates to our team.

[damienmg]

Yes it will include it, the bug isnt closed yet because we still need to test the release part of it. Jakob: we need to rollback all those change then :/

…

On Wed, May 3, 2017, 8:20 PM Rahul Malik ***@***.***> wrote: @damienmg <https://github.com/damienmg> - Is 0.5 going to include #1666 <#1666>? This would be very helpful for distribution of Bazel updates to our team. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2692 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADjHf8krLlqwjTkUZNhhGm7hpw6wIy1sks5r2MVsgaJpZM4MfgP4> .

[buchgr]

@damienmg :-( ... let's talk with laszo tomorrow before the release.

[laszlocsomor]

4 very serious bugs

The situation isn't so severe. See the commit message for full context: protocolbuffers/protobuf@c4c8806

[abergmeier-dsfishlabs]

The situation isn't so severe.

That might be true.
Be aware that due to increasingly fewer Bazel releases/months people might stay on that release for quite some time.
What I am asking is probably - will there be 0.5.x before 0.6?

[damienmg]

Yes 0.5.1 will come soon, 0.5.0 cycle was just too slow.

…

On Thu, May 4, 2017, 10:45 AM Andreas Bergmeier ***@***.***> wrote: The situation isn't so severe. That might be true. Be aware that due to increasingly fewer Bazel releases/months people might stay on that release for quite some time. What I am asking is probably - will there be 0.5.x before 0.6? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2692 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADjHf4bfkLSFAUso3Gr_xqBuoWTPgyTMks5r2ZBDgaJpZM4MfgP4> .

[rahul-malik]

Is there a plan to have a release candidate available before officially shipping 5.0 to incorporate feedback / fix issues before the final release?

[damienmg]

we always do release candidate. We bake them for at least a week.

…

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:10 PM Rahul Malik ***@***.***> wrote: Is there a plan to have a release candidate available before officially shipping 5.0 to incorporate feedback / fix issues before the final release? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2692 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADjHf3DKojAxNzhn7vfIcKRn1ixE9VU4ks5r2dxngaJpZM4MfgP4> .

[hlopko]

Creating RC3, for the info:
base: f3ae88e
cherrypicks:
c58ba09
0acead4
d0242ce
d953ca8

[hlopko]

Please celebrate another rc :) Including big note and 3b08f77 :)

[meteorcloudy]

Thank you, Marcel!! \o/

[ittaiz]

@iirina will 7e91ad6 get in 0.5.0?

[iirina]

It wasn't planned for, but if you have a strong opinion about it being included you can ask @mhlopko if he would create another RC. But since this is already the 8th RC and a release should be done soon, I'm not very sure about it.

[philwo]

If you do another round of cherry-picks, please pick this in: db5e06a

I promised it to a user here: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/43849651/how-to-lock-down-the-bazel-filesystem-sandbox/43897863#43897863

But, to be honest, I think we should call it a day and release this if it's stable and then quickly do a 0.5.1 instead of dragging this out even longer...

[ittaiz]

@philwo @iirina realistically when can we expect 0.5.1?
If 0.5.1 can be cut in a few days (week or two) then of course no objection.
If it's a month from now then I'd say pretty please :)

[damienmg]

We need another release out by the end of June and that's a hard deadline for us so we will cut 0.5.1 a few days after 0.5.0 is released. +1 for Philip's words

…

On Tue, May 23, 2017, 6:56 AM Ittai Zeidman ***@***.***> wrote: @philwo <https://github.com/philwo> @iirina <https://github.com/iirina> realistically when can we expect 0.5.1? If 0.5.1 can be cut in a few days (week or two) then of course no objection. If it's a month from now then I'd say pretty please :) — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2692 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADjHf6Ao_zuo3dQlc80sKzUfzO7qNkGsks5r8uWpgaJpZM4MfgP4> .

[petemounce]

I tried to push rc7 (#2692 (comment)), but it doesn't appear to have arrived in the bucket yet? That is, https://storage.googleapis.com/bazel/0.5.0/rc7/index.html -> NoSuchKey.

[hlopko]

Oh sorry about that, I messed 7 up and didn't push it, and only realized so when I pushed 8... So there's no RC 7...

[petemounce]

Ah, no worries. Thanks.

https://chocolatey.org/packages/bazel/0.5.0-rc8 has been published.

[philwo]

@mhlopko A release critical bug was found in our internal version in which the linux-sandbox is completely non functional (can't even execute /bin/true), cf. b/62022773. The bug does not seem to affect Bazel 0.5.0, but please let me verify this manually before finally releasing Bazel 0.5.0. :( Sorry for the mess...

Amazingly, the bug is present in Bazel's HEAD and causes Bazel to automatically fall back to non-sandboxed execution, but nothing in our CI is catching it. It's totally green and saying that sandboxed tests are passing - WTF.

[damienmg]

IIUC from the internal bug, the causing CL is not in the release branch. All the test from Google teams have come back green, no regression reported by external users, seems like we are good to push 0.5.0rc9 as the 0.5.0 release tomorrow?

[petemounce]

https://chocolatey.org/packages/bazel/0.5.0-rc9 has been published.

[philwo]

Damien: OK, I think we can then go ahead with the release.

[damienmg]

This was released but there is a regression: #3063 :(

Anyway closing this bug.

[petemounce]

https://chocolatey.org/packages/bazel/0.5.0 is published, awaiting automated review.