accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 RC1
Date Fri, 23 Jan 2015 05:56:13 GMT
I think we used to have instruction lying around that described how to 
use https://github.com/lvc/japi-compliance-checker (not like that has 
any influence on what Sean used, though :D)

Corey Nolet wrote:
> Sean- is this what you were using [1]?
>
> [1] https://java.net/projects/jascc
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Christopher<ctubbsii@apache.org>  wrote:
>
>> Various ITs timed out. I'll have to re-run on a more reliable machine.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Corey Nolet<cjnolet@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>>> I did notice something strange reviewing this RC. It appears the
>> staging
>>>> repo doesn't have hash files for the detached GPG signatures
>> (*.asc.md5,
>>>> *.asc.sha1). That's new. Did you do something special regarding this,
>>>> Corey? Or maybe this is just a change with mvn, or maybe it's a change
>>> with
>>>> the staging repo? It's not an issue... the GPG signature doesn't need
>> to
>>>> also be hashed... it's just different and unexpected.
>>> I did update maven to the newest version. Other than that, I haven't done
>>> anything different int he release process.
>>>
>>>> I could not complete a full build, because I had IT test timeouts with
>>>> timeout.factor=2.
>>> Which IT tests were timing out for you?
>>>
>>> On Jan 21, 2015 6:22 PM, "Christopher"<ctubbsii@apache.org>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> I did notice something strange reviewing this RC. It appears the
>> staging
>>>> repo doesn't have hash files for the detached GPG signatures
>> (*.asc.md5,
>>>> *.asc.sha1). That's new. Did you do something special regarding this,
>>>> Corey? Or maybe this is just a change with mvn, or maybe it's a change
>>> with
>>>> the staging repo? It's not an issue... the GPG signature doesn't need
>> to
>>>> also be hashed... it's just different and unexpected.
>>>>
>>>> Other checks I ran:
>>>> GPG signatures on all the artifact files were good, so were the md5 and
>>>> sha1 hashes.
>>>> Every jar artifact has a corresponding source/javadoc jar.
>>>> The git commit matches that specified in the META-INF/MANIFEST.MF for
>>> each
>>>> jar
>>>> The lib directory contains the same jars as those signed/hashed.
>>>> The branch matches the tag matches the source tarball contents.
>>>>
>>>> I could not complete a full build, because I had IT test timeouts with
>>>> timeout.factor=2.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Keith Turner<keith@deenlo.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> I also ran the compliance checker tool.  The only other changes were
>> in
>>>>> o.a.a.core.data.KeyValue.  But that class is not listed as part of
>>> public
>>>>> API.  The changes showed up in the report because the class was in
>> data
>>>>> package.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Christopher<ctubbsii@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Sean Busbey<busbey@cloudera.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:57 AM,<dlmarion@comcast.net>
 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I concur. This change makes the version of this release 1.7.0.
>> We
>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>> need to change the version or remove the method. Good catch.
>> Out
>>> of
>>>>>>>> curiosity, did you find this by visual inspection or with
a
>> tool?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While I have many eyes, they don't generally get spent on
>>>> comprehensive
>>>>>>> code reviews. ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I used the Java API Compatibility Checker.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was that the only violation?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Also, -1 for the same reason.)
>>>>>>
>

Mime
View raw message