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 05:00:58 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message