I'll add this to my docs for bugfix releases- thanks! On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Sean Busbey <bus...@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.el...@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<ctubb...@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<cjno...@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"<ctubb...@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<ke...@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<ctubb...@apache.org> > >>>>>> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Sean Busbey<bus...@cloudera.com > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:57 AM,<dlmar...@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 >
