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 Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:41:25 GMT
I'll add this to my docs for bugfix releases- thanks!

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:

> 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