Josh is correct, I used Java ACC. Our instructions are still present: *http://s.apache.org/ZrV <http://s.apache.org/ZrV>*
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > I think we used to have instruction lying around that described how to use > https://github.com/lvc/japi-compliance-checker (not like that has any > influence on what Sean used, though :D) > > > Corey Nolet wrote: > >> Sean- is this what you were using [1]? >> >> [1] https://java.net/projects/jascc >> >> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Christopher<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Various ITs timed out. I'll have to re-run on a more reliable machine. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Christopher L Tubbs II >>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Corey Nolet<[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. >>>>> >>>> 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.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> -- Sean
