accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Corey Nolet <cjno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Accumulo 1.6.2 RC1
Date Thu, 22 Jan 2015 00:50:56 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.

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