accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 RC1
Date Wed, 21 Jan 2015 23:22:02 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message