Libelektra: 0.9.4 release

Here we can also collect other tasks we may not yet be aware of, so that we get a complete template next time.

@mpranj can we do the release in the next days? Which help is needed?

Yes, I would prefer to do the release this week, so Sunday at latest. @robaerd should we do the release together in a conference call or would you prefer that I just try the release pipeline myself?

I think no help, except maybe support from @robaerd is needed. As discussed we plan no more big changes for 0.9.4. The others can help by working on the next release. We'll need to postpone some issues to 0.9.5 anyway.

Yes, I think doing the release together is a good idea.

Yes, we can do it together, I have time during the day in the next days.

@mpranj

I didn't yet check how the website renders all these internal references. Did you already have a look at it?

Mmh, and clang-format-9 is not easily available anymore. Can we upgrade to clang-format-12? Always good to do this at a release.

I updated the top post.

I didn't yet check how the website renders all these internal references.

No I have not, the _preparation* file is not rendered until we change it the final filename.

Can we upgrade to clang-format-12?

Our formatting check runs on Debian Sid, afaik clang-format-11 is available but not 12. Would be great to use this as 11 is also the version available from homebrew.

Yes, 11 is perfect. 11+12 is available at https://apt.llvm.org/

Yes, 11 is perfect.

I'll make the PR.

Maybe it is better if we move the <a id="..."></a> tags above the head-lines, otherwise it is not clear where you jumped to.

I cleaned up the top post. With (something like) #3641 everything should be good enough for the release.

@mpranj @robaerd thank you so much for your fantastic work on this release! :sparkling_heart:

@markus2330 thank you so much for your work as well. I plan to do the release tomorrow, after I fix the clang format PR and probably disable the failing dbus test.

@robaerd during packaing from the release pipeline I get quite some errors like:

CMake Warning (dev) at /usr/share/cmake-3.13/Modules/Internal/CPack/CPackDeb.cmake:541 (message):
  Shared library './usr/lib/elektra5/libelektra-c.so' is missing soname or
  soversion.  Library will not be added to DEBIAN/shlibs control file.
Call Stack (most recent call first):
  /usr/share/cmake-3.13/Modules/Internal/CPack/CPackDeb.cmake:676 (cpack_deb_prepare_package_vars)
This warning is for project developers.  Use -Wno-dev to suppress it.

elektra_0.9.4-1.build.error.txt

Is this expected or does it occur just for me?

This is expected (see https://github.com/ElektraInitiative/libelektra/pull/3583#issuecomment-743788271).
Unfortunately I did not find a way to hide these warnings.

No problem, I just did not know. I was a bit hesitant due to the docu:

Check if the package build log has warnings 

Sorry I forgot to mention this, I will add this in the next PR to the docu.
I also completly forgot to do a bug report about this as @markus2330 suggested in https://github.com/ElektraInitiative/libelektra/pull/3601#issuecomment-748850500. Will do this in the next days. Having everything distributed over multiple PR's confuses things a bit for me.

@mpranj the warning "CPACK_RPM_PACKAGE_RELOCATABLE will be deactivated because CPACK_SET_DESTDIR is set" during CPack RPM generation is also expected (see https://github.com/ElektraInitiative/libelektra/pull/3601#issuecomment-748648426).

The ftp publishing step failed due to a missing git add .. It seems that everything else was successful.

The ftp publishing step failed due to a missing git add .. It seems that everything else was successful.

Indeed. I also set&pushed the 0.9.4 tag manually to master. I assume this was a precaution.

Thank you both for your work on this release. The new pipeline worked beautifully.

Everything is done but I will announce once the build servers settle (cirrus and travis are a bit slow today..).

Seems like the release was done now :fireworks:

I also completly forgot to do a bug report about this as @markus2330 suggested in #3601 (comment). Will do this in the next days. Having everything distributed over multiple PR's confuses things a bit for me.

One easy trick is to always create issues as reminder. It is enough if they contain the title, a self-assignment and maybe the error message. You can even create an issue to remind about creating another issue for CMake.

Indeed. I also set&pushed the 0.9.4 tag manually to master. I assume this was a precaution.

If everything is expected to work smoothly next time, we can also automate this.