On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 01:14 +0100, sebb wrote: > On 28 June 2014 09:28, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, 2014-06-28 at 00:24 +0100, sebb wrote: > >> On 27 June 2014 20:44, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 17:56 +0100, sebb wrote: > >> >> I'm inclined to agree with Gary that the site is important as a help > >> >> when reviewing the RC. > >> >> > >> >> Apart from the RAT report, there is the Clirr report. > >> >> > >> > > >> > What's wrong with 'mvn clirr:check', which is a part of the release > >> > process anyway? One is welcome to add RAT maven plugin as well. > >> > >> My point is that these reports should be part of the RC VOTE. > >> > > > > Right, and 'mvn clirr:check' gives you exactly that report. Voting on > > some pre-generated report or website is _idiocy_ because there is no way > > of telling if those reports actually match the release artifacts voted > > upon. > > There's also no way to be sure that the binaries agree with the source.
And here we go. Voting on binary artifacts is equally stupid. The only thing we should be voting on is source tarball. But who cares? Playing ASF police is just too much fun, isn't it? Oleg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
