On 6 March 2017 at 11:08, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> wrote: > On 4 March 2017 at 01:33, Justin Ross <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, everyone. This our first release candidate for the Qpid Python 1.36.0 >> release. Please test in your environment, report what you find, and then >> vote to approve or reject the release. >> >> Source distribution: >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/qpid/python/1.36.0-rc1/ >> >> Tag: >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=qpid-python.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/1.36.0-rc1 >> >> Branch: >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=qpid-python.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/1.36.x >> >> Issues: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=fixVersion%20%3D%20qpid-python-1.36.0%20AND%20project%20%3D%20QPID > > +1 > > I tested the RC out as follows: > - Verified the signature and checksum files (note the .sha changed to > SHA-256). > - Checked LICENCE+NOTICE files present, year updated in the latter. > - Ran RAT on the extracted archive. > - Did a user local install of the package. > - Ran the hello example against Qpid Broker for Java 6.1.1. > > Robbie
Based on discussion in thread "[DISCUSS] release checksum filename extension", I think maybe we should consider changing the .sha checksum to use SHA512 rather than SHA256. Robbie --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
