p.s.: These are pretty easy fixes to include/exclude the files Eniroc mentioned, so on second thought probably worth fixing and do an rc2. I'll create a jira and start to work on it. We'll see if anything else comes up or how the vote goes.
- Norbert On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 2:20 PM Norbert Kalmar <nkal...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Hi Enrico, > > I checked the release, you are right. I mainly did the comparison with the > 3.5.6 release as there were no changes on file/dependency level really. All > of these points stand for that release as well. That's why I didn't notice > or thought of it as release breaking flaw. > > In my opinion, we should definitely create a jira to fix these for the > next 3.5 release, and just go forward with 3.5.7. This is a bugfix release, > and it does fix a few critical bugs and thirdparty CVEs. > None of this was introduced with this bugfix version, so from my point of > view these are not breaking content errors. > > On the other hand I am biased I guess due to the fact I made the release :) > So knowing this let me know if anyone thinks this is a -1 for rc1. > > Thanks, > Norbert > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 2:01 PM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Norbert, >> thank you for working on this. >> >> I see differences between the contents of the source tarball and the >> git tag (using Meld, as suggested by Patrick some month ago), namely: >> - there is not checkstyleSuppressions.xml file, and mvn >> checkstyle:check fails (it is not bound to the default lifecycle, so >> mvn clean install still works) >> - there are ".c" generated files, they should not be part of the source >> release >> - there is not "dev" directory >> - there is not .travis.yml file >> >> I am somehow biased because I worked on this stuff for 3.6.0rc0,rc1 and >> rc2 >> AKAIK these problems were already present in 3.5.6 so I am not sure >> these are blocker issues for a release. >> >> I am still continuing my tests >> I just wanted to inform you about my findings, this way we can choose >> what do to as soon as possible. >> >> >> Enrico >> >> >> Il giorno ven 7 feb 2020 alle ore 13:29 Norbert Kalmar >> <nkal...@apache.org> ha scritto: >> > >> > This is the second bugfix release candidate for 3.5.7. It fixes 21 >> issues, >> > including third party CVE fixes, potential data loss and potential split >> > brain if some rare conditions exists. >> > >> > (I have signed rc0 with the wrong key - sorry for that). Everything >> else is >> > unchanged from rc0. >> > >> > The full release notes is available at: >> > >> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310801&version=12346098 >> > >> > *** Please download, test and vote by February 11th 2020, 23:59 UTC+0. >> *** >> > >> > Source files: >> > https://people.apache.org/~nkalmar/zookeeper-3.5.7-candidate-1/ >> > >> > Maven staging repo: >> > >> https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/staging/org/apache/zookeeper/zookeeper/3.5.7/ >> > >> > The release candidate tag in git to be voted upon: release-3.5.7-rc1 >> > (points to the same commit as rc0) >> > >> > ZooKeeper's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release: >> > https://www.apache.org/dist/zookeeper/KEYS >> > >> > Should we release this candidate? >> >
