On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 at 09:35, Piotr P. Karwasz <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > On 16.04.2026 14:12, Alex Herbert wrote: > > We have fixed quite a few bugs and added some significant enhancements > > since Apache Commons RNG 1.6 was released, so I would like to release > > Apache Commons RNG 1.7. > > > > [...] > > > > Please review the release candidate and vote. > > This vote will close no sooner than 72 hours from now. > > > > [ ] +1 Release these artifacts > > [ ] +0 OK, but... > > [ ] -0 OK, but really should fix... > > [ ] -1 I oppose this release because... > > > +1, release the artifacts. > > I performed the following checks: > > - Verified signatures and hashes. > - Reviewed the RAT report: there are several files flagged with > unapproved licenses, but they all appear to be test resources. > - Compared the japicmp report against the changelog: all changes are > accounted for. > - Ran the unit tests successfully. > - Reproduced the artifacts using: > - JDK: 11 > - TZ=Europe/London > > I had to exclude all `-site.xml` artifacts (missing) and SPDX artifacts > (non-reproducible) from the reproducibility check. >
Thanks Piotr, The failure of the rat report has been fixed in commons parent 99. In CP 98 the build section and the reporting section are different and this leads to files not being excluded in the rat report, but the build passes rat check. I can correct the report manually for the website. I manually removed the site.xml for the parent pom from the nexus staging area. I do not know why anyone would depend on the site xml for anything. It is attached to the release by some part of the build and I do not think it needs to be there. It happens with commons parent too but not any commons release that is for a jar file. It must be related to how a pom artifact is staged. Alex --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
