+1 Checked build on Java version: 21.0.8, vendor: Ubuntu, runtime: /usr/lib/jvm/java-21-openjdk-amd64 Default locale: en_US, platform encoding: UTF-8 OS name: "linux", version: "6.14.0-34-generic", arch: "amd64", family: "unix"
Strange I did not get the japicmp report. I had to hack the pom to add it. When I did, it looked clean, though there are a lot of API changes. Findbugs has a lot of complaints, but no show-stoppers. Release notes look good. I only checked sigs and hashes for the src tarball. They are good. Thanks for the RM Phil On Sun, Nov 2, 2025 at 1:47 PM Piotr P. Karwasz <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Gary, > > On 2.11.2025 21:10, Gary Gregory wrote: > > This vote will close no sooner than 72 hours from now. > > > > [ ] +1 Release these artifacts > > [ ] +0 OK, but... > > [ ] -0 OK, but really should fix... > > [ ] -1 I oppose this release because... > > +1 (binding): release the artifacts. > > I've verified the following: > > - Signatures and checksums: All archives and Maven artifacts are valid. > - Unit tests: All tests pass successfully. > - RAT report: The `leaf.svg` file (an XML file) could include a license > header, but this is non-blocking. > - Japicmp report: All API changes are correctly listed in the changelog. > - Reproducibility: Maven artifacts reproduce identically with > - JDK 25 > - TZ=UTC > - Command used: > mvn verify artifact:compare \ > > -Dreference.repo= > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1870/ > \ > -Dbuildinfo.ignore="*/*spdx.json" > > Unlike other releases you've prepared, the `scm/tag` element in the POM > is set to `HEAD` instead of the release tag that will be used to mark > this version. Everything else looks good to me, thanks for preparing the > release! > > Piotr > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
