accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 RC1
Date Fri, 23 Jan 2015 06:05:28 GMT
Josh is correct, I used Java ACC.

Our instructions are still present: *http://s.apache.org/ZrV
<http://s.apache.org/ZrV>*


On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>


-- 
Sean

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message