Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on May 23, 2023. It is now read-only.

Update the Travis script to allow publishing from v.0.0.0 branches. #195

Conversation

carlosalberto
Copy link
Collaborator

Thing is, we cannot publish from 0.0.0-style branches as they are
excluded, based on the current global Travis configuration, thus
we try to publish from branches following a v.0.0.0 style, if any.

Thing is, we cannot publish from 0.0.0-style branches as they are
excluded, based on the current global Travis configuration, thus
we try to publish from branches following a v.0.0.0 style, if any.
@carlosalberto
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Hey Pavol,

Managed to get an actual patch after going through the slightly intricate workflow for publishing. Let me know if this patch makes sense to you.

Copy link
Member

@pavolloffay pavolloffay left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It looks good!

@carlosalberto
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@pavolloffay Going to merge then, and will issue a release- branch. Thanks!

@pavolloffay
Copy link
Member

do not forget to change the branch :P

@carlosalberto carlosalberto merged commit 27327e9 into opentracing:0.31.0 Sep 28, 2017
@carlosalberto carlosalberto deleted the travis-allow-release-from-v-branches branch September 29, 2017 16:49
carlosalberto added a commit to carlosalberto/opentracing-java that referenced this pull request Dec 15, 2017
…pentracing#195)

Thing is, we cannot publish from 0.0.0-style branches as they are
excluded, based on the current global Travis configuration, thus
we try to publish from branches following a v.0.0.0 style, if any.
carlosalberto added a commit to carlosalberto/opentracing-java that referenced this pull request Dec 17, 2017
* Code cleanup (opentracing#199)

- Propagate @deprecated annotation to implementations
- Remove redundant "static final" definition from interface
- Use Collections.emptyMap instead of Collections.EMPTY_MAP to preserve type

* Add support for multi reference and expose references context and type from MockSpan. (opentracing#213)

* Publish test artifact for Globaltracer testutil (opentracing#209)

* Fix MockTracer.ChildOf not fail if there is a null argument passed (opentracing#226)

* Make ChildOf not fail if there is a null argument passed

* Moved tracer test to where it belongs. Fixed typo.

* Use correct reference in Javadoc (opentracing#230)

* MockTracer use text map propag in the default constructor (opentracing#179)

* Implement a simpler Span propagation without lifetime handling. (opentracing#188)

- Scope replaces ActiveSpan, without sharing a common ancestor with Span.
- ScopeManager replaces ActiveSpanSource.
- No reference-count to handle Span's lifetime.
- A simple thread-local based ScopeManager.

* travis publish.sh allow releases from branches (opentracing#191)

* Travis allow release from non master branches (opentracing#192)

* Travis allow release from non master branches

Publis script compares remote branch with current checkout.
This passes travis_branch into git checkout command so
it will compare the same branches.

* Fix comments

* Travis publish script, remove -RC on git checkout (opentracing#193)

* Update the Travis script to allow publishing from v.0.0.0 branches. (opentracing#195)

Thing is, we cannot publish from 0.0.0-style branches as they are
excluded, based on the current global Travis configuration, thus
we try to publish from branches following a v.0.0.0 style, if any.

* Readme document release process for release candidates (opentracing#198)

* Readme document release process for release candidates

* Adjust publish.sh to work with release from master branch

* Add Examples for async use cases (opentracing#197)

* Add examples for async as test cases

This includes execution flow similar to:
* Actor ask/tell
* Promises with callbacks
* Work interleaved on a thread using suspend/resume.

The implementations of these execution models are obviously very simplistic, but intended to emphasize the tracing aspect.

* Update README files to reflect the Scope concept. (opentracing#217)

* Let Tracer.activeSpan() be a shorthand for ScopeManager's active Span. (opentracing#228)

* Let Tracer.activeSpan() be a shorthand for ScopeManager's active Span.

* Document the null case for Tracer.activeSpan().

* Have Tracer.activeSpan() return null.

* Remove @link for Tracer.activeSpan().

'Nested' links do not happen to exist under javadoc,
so Tracer.scopeManager().active().span() is now
not a link.

* Change BINARY to be resizable and stream-oriented. (opentracing#223)

* Change BINARY to be resizable and stream-oriented.

* Abstract the Binary adapter and have an Adapters class to return it.

* Remove the isInbound/isOutbound methods from BinaryAdapter.

* Make Binary use the Channel paradigm for injection/extraction

* Have binary methods in Adapters named after inject/extract.

* Add a BINARY propagator for MockTracer.

* Throw RuntimeException in case of errors during BINARY's injection.

* Put braces around if-blocks for Adapters/BinaryAdapter.

* Use verbose messages for null parameters in Adapters.

* SpanBuilder deprecate startManual (opentracing#225)

* SpanBuilder deprecate startManual

* Fix review comments

* Remove default finish behaviour for `activate()`  (opentracing#219)

* Do not auto finish on scope.close

* Fix review comments

* Fix review comments

* Add explanatory statement about not auto-finishing

* Define only activate(s, bool)

* Use the parameterless startActive() in a forgotten test in MockTracerTest.
@codefromthecrypt
Copy link
Contributor

I think there was no tag for 0.31.0-RC1, maybe it was for this commit? If so, can you please tag so that git diff between tags can be made? http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22io.opentracing%22%20AND%20a%3A%22opentracing-api%22

@carlosalberto
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Hey @adriancole thanks for pointing this out*. Would you be fine with a manually (annotated) tag that resembles the one automatically created by the deploy plugin? If yes, I can go ahead and do it myself. Let me know.

(Else we would need to do some juggling here and there ;) )

*I remember we had a slight problem releasing from a branch other than master, and thus we ended up without this tag.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants