Julian>Can we keep it consistent please? It's good to find bugs like this, but it's depressing to only be finding them in RC3.
Frankly speaking, I find it too much repetition to have calcite- in a version name. We do not have Avatica in the repository, so why should we have long versions like calcite-...-...--.. ? >It's good to find bugs like this, but it's depressing to only be >finding them in RC3 I think the approach here is: 1) Integrate the checks (e.g. Zoomdata) to PR CI and/or to daily CI job 2) Ensure that the vote email contains the exact sequence of commands to validate the release. For instance: download, verify checksum, verify pgp, unzip, build, test, etc, etc. The sequence can easily be automated, and I don't really see much point in everybody doing those checks manually. Note: the current release archive is reproducible. That means everybody who creates the release archive should end up with exactly the same file. Vladimir
