Site: Troubleshooting/Website publishing improvements in release guide

[libenchao]

No description provided.

[libenchao]

Throws following exception with GITBOX:

> Task :pushRcTag FAILED

Build calcite FAILURE reason:
    Execution failed for task ':pushRcTag':
        Caused by: org.eclipse.jgit.api.errors.TransportException: https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/calcite.git: not authorized
            at org.eclipse.jgit.api.PushCommand.call(PushCommand.java:147)
            at com.github.vlsi.gradle.release.jgit.dsl.GitExtensionsKt.push(GitExtensions.kt:132)
            at com.github.vlsi.gradle.release.GitPushTask$pushTag$1.invoke(GitPushTask.kt:54)
            at com.github.vlsi.gradle.release.GitPushTask$pushTag$1.invoke(GitPushTask.kt:30)
            at com.github.vlsi.gradle.release.DefaultGitTask.jgit(DefaultGitTask.kt:45)
            at com.github.vlsi.gradle.release.GitPushTask.pushTag(GitPushTask.kt:50)

[F21]

For avatica, I also have -Pasf.git.pushRepositoryProvider=GITBOX in the release script: https://github.com/apache/calcite-avatica/blob/main/docker.sh#L298

I haven't used this recently, so not sure if it still works.

[libenchao]

CC @NobiGo @zabetak since you are the latest release managers.

[zabetak]

The asf.git.pushRepositoryProvider should be inline with asfGitSourceUsername and asfGitSourcePassword. If you are using GITBOX then you should use the ASF credentials; if you use GITHUB you should use the GitHub credentials. I assume both providers should work fine if the correct credentials are set.

I think there were some misconception that GITHUB was not working in the past (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-4856) but I suspect that the underlying reason was the same (mixing ASF vs. GitHub credentials).

If we want to improve something it makes sense to clarify somewhere this story about the different credentials and not just change again the default values.

[libenchao]

I was following this line to setup the environment:

calcite/site/_docs/howto.md

Lines 686 to 687 in 816edd1

	Note: `asfGitSourceUsername` is your GitHub id while `asfGitSourcePassword` is not your GitHub password.
	You need to generate it in https://github.com/settings/tokens choosing `Personal access tokens`.

I thought this is the suggested way to interact with Git. (Actually I'm not sure how to setup Gitbox credentials, I guess asfGitSourcePassword is the apache password which is the same with asfNexusPassword and
asfSvnPassword?)

[zabetak]

Yes, the Gitbox credentials is the usual username and password combination that is used to access most (if not all) ASF services.

[libenchao]

I'll leave the default as 'GITBOX', and add more comments about it.

[libenchao]

It seems there are no steps need to use this, I propose to remove it to make the document clean.

[F21]

+1, Since the release script generates the emails, I think most RMs will just copy that verbatim, so the shortening of links seem redundant.

[zabetak]

My understanding is that these steps are for creating mnemonic URLs that people can easily find and refer to it in future. I don't think was ever meant to be used for the voting process it self but for later reference to it if needed. I don't have a strong opinion on keeping or removing them but they do serve a purpose. For instance, typing the following just works and brings me what I need:

• https://s.apache.org/calcite-1.34.0-vote
• https://s.apache.org/calcite-1.34.0-result

[libenchao]

I also agree that it served for some purpose. The problem now is that it sometimes confuses new RMs (this has happened during 1.35.0 releasing: https://lists.apache.org/thread/nv2xclvgrw84866o0q2ngdx4c2dg6pqq).

[zabetak]

If the explanation that I gave above clarifies a bit the situation then we could enrich the doc accordingly. If you feel that there might be still confusion then feel free to remove the section altogether.

[sonarqubecloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

No Coverage information
No Duplication information

[libenchao]

@zabetak @F21 I've addressed the comments above (kept the removing the shortening URL section since I think it's not a required step in current release process, removing it would make the document clean and concise), if there is no more remarks, I'll merge it later.