> I did notice something strange reviewing this RC. It appears the staging > repo doesn't have hash files for the detached GPG signatures (*.asc.md5, > *.asc.sha1). That's new. Did you do something special regarding this, > Corey? Or maybe this is just a change with mvn, or maybe it's a change with > the staging repo? It's not an issue... the GPG signature doesn't need to > also be hashed... it's just different and unexpected.
I did update maven to the newest version. Other than that, I haven't done anything different int he release process. > I could not complete a full build, because I had IT test timeouts with > timeout.factor=2. Which IT tests were timing out for you? On Jan 21, 2015 6:22 PM, "Christopher" <[email protected]> wrote: > I did notice something strange reviewing this RC. It appears the staging > repo doesn't have hash files for the detached GPG signatures (*.asc.md5, > *.asc.sha1). That's new. Did you do something special regarding this, > Corey? Or maybe this is just a change with mvn, or maybe it's a change with > the staging repo? It's not an issue... the GPG signature doesn't need to > also be hashed... it's just different and unexpected. > > Other checks I ran: > GPG signatures on all the artifact files were good, so were the md5 and > sha1 hashes. > Every jar artifact has a corresponding source/javadoc jar. > The git commit matches that specified in the META-INF/MANIFEST.MF for each > jar > The lib directory contains the same jars as those signed/hashed. > The branch matches the tag matches the source tarball contents. > > I could not complete a full build, because I had IT test timeouts with > timeout.factor=2. > > > > -- > Christopher L Tubbs II > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Keith Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I also ran the compliance checker tool. The only other changes were in > > o.a.a.core.data.KeyValue. But that class is not listed as part of public > > API. The changes showed up in the report because the class was in data > > package. > > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:57 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I concur. This change makes the version of this release 1.7.0. We > > > either > > > > > need to change the version or remove the method. Good catch. Out of > > > > > curiosity, did you find this by visual inspection or with a tool? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While I have many eyes, they don't generally get spent on > comprehensive > > > > code reviews. ;) > > > > > > > > I used the Java API Compatibility Checker. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Was that the only violation? > > > > > > (Also, -1 for the same reason.) > > > > > >
