+1 I verified: - the sha512 matches - signature matches and is valid - CiaB comes up and serves the demo file, TP UI comes up and appears to generally work, TM UI comes up and shows polled caches as available. - unit tests for TO,TM,ORT/atstccfg,lib pass. - generating ATS config from CiaB seems to work, files appear correct.
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 7:15 AM Dave Neuman <neu...@apache.org> wrote: > Has anyone else had the change to test this release? This vote has been > open for almost a month and a half and we have only gotten two votes. > I would love you see our community make testing this release candidate (and > future release candidates) a priority so that we can get these out. I know > this is a big release and we are trying to make our releases smaller, but > making releases smaller also means releasing more frequently and we cannot > release more frequently if it takes 6 weeks to get the votes we need. > Please take some time to do some testing on this release and give us a +1 > or -1. > > Thanks, > Dave > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 9:40 AM Jeremy Mitchell <mitchell...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > +1 on 4.0.0 RC4 based on the extensive validation we've done on it > > internally at Comcast. We've validated all the changes introduced since > 3.1 > > as well as some basic regression testing. > > > > Jeremy > > > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 9:15 AM Dan Kirkwood <dang...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > that file is created during creation of the tarball. It only exists > > > because the build number is calculated from the git history, so can't > be > > > calculated from the tarball.... > > > > > > Certainly wouldn't hurt to have that noted as a file weasel should > > ignore.. > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 3:19 PM Chris Lemmons <alfic...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Yup. It's _only_ a problem on the actual release tarball. You don't > > > > need that file if you're checking out from git. That's why none of > the > > > > tools caught it, but Dave did. He was testing against the proposed > > > > release. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 3:12 PM Rawlin Peters <raw...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Oh, it's probably just an artifact from building the tarball -- the > > > > > asf-ci build job checks out 4.0.x in git and builds from there. > > > > > > > > > > - Rawlin > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 3:08 PM Rawlin Peters < > > rawlin.pet...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > That's strange, because the asf-ci build job for 4.0.x doesn't > have > > > > > > any weasel issues: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://builds.apache.org/view/S-Z/view/TrafficControl/job/trafficcontrol-4.0.x-build/18/artifact/dist/weasel.txt > > > > > > > > > > > > - Rawlin > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 3:00 PM Chris Lemmons < > alfic...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The weasel is reporting that BUILD_NUMBER does not have a > license > > > > > > > header and it's not declared with a license in the > > > dependency_license > > > > > > > file. Since BUILD_NUMBER is very small and not code, it can > > survive > > > > > > > without the header. I've opened up a fix here: > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/trafficcontrol/pull/4431 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > FWIW, it is important to verify that any present weasel errors > > are > > > > > > > investigated prior to approving a release. People expect our > > stuff > > > to > > > > > > > be properly licensed. If the error had been something serious, > we > > > > > > > could have had a problem if we'd released. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did verify the signature is good. But I've not done any > > testing, > > > so > > > > > > > I'm only +0. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 1:51 PM Dave Neuman <neu...@apache.org > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > I verified that sha512sum and signature. I was able to build > > all > > > > of the > > > > > > > > components, but weasel failed for some reason. Since it's > not > > > > critical to > > > > > > > > running a CDN, I won't let that hold us up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 9:42 AM Rawlin Peters < > > raw...@apache.org > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a release for v4.0.0-RC4 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The vote is open for at least 72 hours and passes if a > > majority > > > > of at > > > > > > > > > least 3 +1 PMC votes are cast. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [ ] +1 Approve the release > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes since 3.1.0: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/trafficcontrol/compare/RELEASE-3.1.0...RELEASE-4.0.0-RC4 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This corresponds to git: > > > > > > > > > Hash: 92a14286c60e46da08d08c5dfa3114b31e44311a > > > > > > > > > Tag: RELEASE-4.0.0-RC4 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which can be verified with the following: git tag -v > > > > RELEASE-4.0.0-RC4 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My code signing key is available here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://keys.gnupg.net/pks/lookup?search=0x8A0712500C70C06E&op=vindex > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Make sure you refresh from a key server to get all relevant > > > > signatures. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The source .tgz file, pgp signature (.asc signed with my > key > > > from > > > > > > > > > above), and sha512 checksums are provided here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/trafficcontrol/4.0.0/RC4 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > Rawlin Peters raw...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
