All checks have passed

I think it would be good if this PR also included the accompanying changes to https://github.com/filecoin-project/lotus/blob/master/documentation/misc/RELEASE_ISSUE_TEMPLATE.md so its clear how this affects the "release engineer". Maybe @rjan90 should take this?

I think it would be good if this PR also included the accompanying changes to https://github.com/filecoin-project/lotus/blob/master/documentation/misc/RELEASE_ISSUE_TEMPLATE.md so its clear how this affects the "release engineer". Maybe @rjan90 should take this?

That's a good idea, I'll propose the changes to that file - I think it'll be good way to do the final verification on our mutual understanding of the new process.

I updated the documentation and the accompanying workflows to make sure the automation changes are reflected.

👍 so far

@galargh : I'll let others chime in here, but a couple of comments or things to be aware of.

1. FYI that we'll be dropping the "releases" branch soon (after the nv23 upgrade) as part of Revised Lotus Node/Client Versioning #12072

2. I believe we should maintain the Homebrew functionality given it is the recommended path on Macs: https://lotus.filecoin.io/lotus/install/macos/

#12231

1. FYI that we'll be dropping the "releases" branch soon (after the nv23 upgrade) as part of Revised Lotus Client Versioning #12072

Off the top of my head, getting rid of releases will require:

• updating triggers - e.g.

  lotus/.github/workflows/release.yml

  Line 8 in 1b9f812

  - releases

• simplifying this check - https://github.com/filecoin-project/lotus/blob/1b9f8126b1de50472a0701f6bffffc771e78ef1d/.github/workflows/release.yml#L61-62

And that should be about it.

2. I believe we should maintain the Homebrew functionality given it is the recommended path on Macs: https://lotus.filecoin.io/lotus/install/macos/

OK, we'll set it up this will in the homebrew-lotus repository directly.

I don't think these two are blocking.

I assume this is waiting on final approval from @rvagg . I've re-requested review.

Some issues encountered when taking v1.27.2 all the way that will need to be addressed here: #12249 (comment)

This required a further merge of release/v1.27.2 into the releases branch to finalise #12250, which is different from RC builds. This is as designed but needs to change for v1.28.0 forward because we are not using the releases branch for that.

This was expected as per #12096 (comment). Updated now in c1d8638

This created miner builds and a miner release: https://github.com/filecoin-project/lotus/releases/tag/untagged-086fb5cb1c887e1c1658, although the release page is mostly empty except for some titles and the build assets. I cancelled the miner release step before it did its thing so we haven't pushed that: https://github.com/filecoin-project/lotus/actions/runs/9972453588/job/27556032962

This was expected, too, since miner/v1.27.1 hasn't been released before and v1.27.1 is the miner version in the releases branch. The notes for miner releases are sourced from changelog.

The release page it posted had two titles and two contributor tables; one taken from the CHANGELOG and one generated. The contributors table that was generated was more correct although the title wasn't an h2 (##), I forgot to redo it. But I edited the release page after the draft was created, but when it did the final release it overwrote my edits so I have to edit it again. It would be good if the draft could be used to get it right before it's pushed to the wild since some people get the original via email or other notification where the edits won't be seen after publish.

Removed secondary title in 55d83f0

The release notes are changelog entry + mkreleaselog output. You no longer have to paste the mkreleaselog output in changelog directly.

Added draft notes preservation in 55d83f0

This was expected, too, since miner/v1.27.1 hasn't been released before and v1.27.1 is the miner version in the releases branch. The notes for miner releases are sourced from changelog.

Oh .. we set the miner version to be something without -dev: 8e7cd7d, we probably should leave it as -dev so we don't get unwanted releases.

@galargh: are the next steps clear here so we can get this merged?

@rvagg : per slack, @galargh believes this is good to go. Will you please merge?

Has conflicts that need resolving. @galargh I'm happy for you to squash merge this once you're done with the conflicts.

I don't see any outstanding conflicts. Is it with some other branch than the target (master)? Let me know, happy to update as needed.

hm, no, I'm sure there were conflicts when I posted that message! Looks good to go now.

Might have been some glitch with GitHub UI; thank you for merging, let me know if there are any issues with it and I'll jump straight on it.