+1 (Non-Binding)
Chris
- All artifacts downloaded: OK
- Verified the signature: OK (No trust root chain however ... you should go to
a key-signing event with other Apache folks)
gpg --verify compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-source-release.zip.asc
compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-source-release.zip
- Signature refers to an apache email: OK
- Validated the SHA512 hash: OK
shasum -a512 compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-source-release.zip
- Unzips correctly: OK
- Check existence of LICENSE and NOTICE files: OK (README and RELEASE_NOTES are
not mandatory)
- Check contents of NOTICE file: MINOR (See notes at end)
- All files have Apache headers in them: MINOR (See notes at end)
- No SNAPSHOT references: OK
- Build with "mvn clean install": OK
NOTES:
NOTICE: It seems we are missing the attribution to Adobe, however the initial
commit already had the default Apache header with no attributions to Adobe and
it's just one file: UnknownTreePatternInputOutput ... usually one file doesn't
require attribution in the NOTICE file, so I think it's ok to proceed. I added
a PR which will add Adobe in the NOTICE files in future releases.
Headers: It seems when I initially wrote some of the code I used the 3rd party
Apache header ... I created a PR to fix all of these files. However this
shouldn't be considered a blocker to the release.
Am 28.03.20, 17:55 schrieb "Carlos Rovira" <carlosrov...@apache.org>:
+1 (Binding)
- Package:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/royale/compiler-build-tools/1.2.0/compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-source-release.zip
- Java: 1.8.0_181
- OS: Mac OS X x86_64 10.15.3
- Signatures and hashes fine
- No unexpected binary files
- Can compile from source with test
- Check In actual Apache Royale development branch
- Tested Tour De Jewel example working as expected
El sáb., 28 mar. 2020 a las 12:23, Carlos Rovira (<carlosrov...@apache.org>)
escribió:
> Ok Thanks Chris,
> I think now is fixed :)
>
> El sáb., 28 mar. 2020 a las 11:26, Christofer Dutz (<
> christofer.d...@c-ware.de>) escribió:
>
>> Hi Carlos,
>>
>> not checked the release yet however Apache requires sha512 checksums and
>> doesn't like md5 and sha1 ...
>> Please check that you're sort of doing it like described here:
>> https://plc4x.apache.org/developers/release/release.html
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> Am 28.03.20, 11:16 schrieb "Carlos Rovira" <carlosrov...@apache.org>:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> sorry the link to the 1.2.0 artifacts was wrong. The right one is
>> this:
>>
>>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/royale/compiler-build-tools/1.2.0/
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Carlos
>>
>>
>>
>> El sáb., 28 mar. 2020 a las 11:00, Carlos Rovira (<
>> carlosrov...@apache.org>)
>> escribió:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > This is the vote for the 1.2.0 release of Compiler Build Tools.
>> >
>> > We solved some issues needed for reproducible releases of Apache
>> Royale in
>> > this compiler build tools release:
>> >
>> > The release candidate can be found in this staging repository:
>> >
>> >
>>
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/royale/compiler-build-tools/1.2.0/
>> >
>> > Before voting please review the section,'What are the ASF
>> requirements on
>> > approving a release?', at:
>> > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
>> >
>> > At a minimum you would be expected to check that:
>> > - SHA and signed packages are correct
>> > - README, RELEASE_NOTES, NOTICE and LICENSE files are all fine
>> > - That you can use the new release in Apache Royale build script
>> (maven or
>> > ant) and build script completes successfully.
>> > - That you can compile and cross-compile a simple example using the
>> SDK.
>> >
>> > The KEYS file is at
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/royale/KEYS
>> >
>> > Maven artifacts are staged here:
>> >
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheroyale-1062
>> >
>> > Please vote to approve this release:
>> > +1 Approve the release
>> > -1 Disapprove the release (please provide specific comments to why)
>> >
>> > This vote will be open for 72 hours or until a result can be
called.
>> >
>> > The vote passes if there is:
>> > - At least 3 +1 votes from the PMC
>> > - More positive votes than negative votes
>> >
>> > Remember that this is a 'beta-quality' release so expect there
>> > will be many bugs found. IMO the goal is not to try to find and
>> fix bugs
>> > in the RC, but to make sure we have the packaging right, and enough
>> > functionality that folks will have some success trying to use it.
>> >
>> > People who are not in PMC are also encouraged to test out the
>> release and
>> > vote, although their votes will not be binding, they can influence
>> how the
>> > PMC votes.
>> >
>> > When voting please indicate what OS, IDE, Flash Player version and
>> AIR
>> > version you tested with.
>> >
>> > Please put all discussion about this release in the DISCUSSION
>> thread not
>> > this VOTE thread.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > --
>> > Carlos Rovira
>> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Carlos Rovira
>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
