Comments inline On 4/8/20 9:03 AM, Christofer Dutz wrote: > Hi all, > > +0 (binding) > > would have given a -1, but I'm unsure if this the problem in building is > sitting in front of the keyboard or if SBT is just not as mature as Maven or > if there's actually a problem in the project. > > Source Bundle: > [OK] Signatures match > [OK] Signatures by apache email address > [OK] Hashes match (Both 256 and 512 versions) > [OK] Source bundle unpacks correctly > [OK] Unpacked sources contain NOTICE, LICENSE, README.md and DISCLAIMER > [OK] Year on NOTICE file correct, LICENSE file correctly lists up the > included passera and UniquenessCache.scala code > [NOT OK] When running "sbt compile" actually nothing was compiled, when > running "sbt -mem 6144 test" it compiled however at least one unit test > failed: > [error] (daffodil-test-ibm1 / Test / test) > sbt.TestsFailedException: Tests unsuccessful > When re-runnning the "sbt -mem 6144 test" command, the > build is sort of hanging for more than 40 minutes now ... will abort and > re-try a third time ... > Had to do a "sudo sbt clean" as I was getting permissions > denied from being a normal user > When re-running the original build I now got script errors ... so I > deleted the entire directory, unpacked it again and re-ran the build. > Unfortunately same error: > [error] (daffodil-test-ibm1 / Test / test) > sbt.TestsFailedException: Tests unsuccessful
This is really odd. I don't have any issues compiling and running tests form the src package. We did update the sbt version, so the first run can take a bit of time to download and compile the right sbt version, but that shouldn't take that long. Any chance you can find the name of the test that failed? > Binaries: > [NOT OK] The jars should all contain the DISCLAIMER in /META-INF/DISCLAIMER > ... it seems they are missing this. I've created DAFFODIL-2315 to fix this issue. > [NOT OKisch] The LICENSE files in the jar files all refer to at least some > files not contained in the jars themselves (Because the same LICENSE text is > being used for all artifacts) I'd prefer to not have to maintain a separate license file for each of our jars. Seems pretty error prone to keep updated. Do you know how other projects handle this? > [NOT OK] The jars in Nexus don't contain DISCLAIMER files either. That will be fixed as part of DAFFODIL-2315. > > > so after validating your release I do have a few comments: > > - SHA512 hashes are the default and as far as I recall shorter Hashes are > considered deprecated (Perhaps drop the SHA265 hashes) Created DAFFODIL-2316 > - Does the README.md suggestion to edit "/etc/sbt/sbtopts" also apply for Mac > and Windows? Created DAFFODIL-2317, I suspect this file is not correct for Mac/Wincows > - You seem to bundle quite a number of IDE settings files in the release, is > this intentional? This is intentional. Our project layout is a bit unique and Eclipse can't easily import it, so we actually have a tool to create eclipse configuration settings and we include those in the source. DAFFODIL-1983 is the issue to remove this and make it a more automated process. > - in the Daffodil-Lib module you bundle some code which is BSD-2, BSD-3 > licensed. You include the license text inside the source directory, in other > projects we usually have a "licenses" directory containing the license texts > of bundled software, this makes it easier to find for people. I've seen it both ways in various Apache projects. I personally prefer everything to be in a single file. Does Apache have guideance if one is preferred over the other? > - A number of the test XML files are missing Apache headers even if they > could contain them Skimming these, it looks like at least a couple can have the license without breaking tests. Created DAFFODIL-2318 > - The .gitignore could use a header. Created DAFFODIL-2319 > > > > Am 08.04.20, 00:24 schrieb "Olabusayo Kilo" <ok...@tresys.com>: > > (Resending due to issue with weird formatting/pipes in previous message) > > Hi all, > > I'd like to call a vote to release Apache Daffodil (incubating) 2.6.0-rc1. > > All distribution packages, including signatures, digests, etc. can be > found at: > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/daffodil/2.6.0-rc1/ > > Staging artifacts can be found at: > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedaffodil-1014/ > > This release has been signed with PGP key 639637FDA8049411, corresponding > to olabus...@apache.org, which is included in the KEYS file here: > > https://downloads.apache.org/incubator/daffodil/KEYS > > The release candidate has been tagged in git with v2.6.0-rc1. > > For reference, here is a list of all closed JIRAs tagged with 2.0.0: > > https://s.apache.org/daffodil-issues-2.6.0 > > For a summary of the changes in this release, see: > > https://daffodil.apache.org/releases/2.6.0/ > > Please review and vote. The vote will be open for at least 72 hours > (ends on Friday, 10 April 2020, 3 PM EST). > > [ ] +1 approve > [ ] +0 no opinion > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) > > -- > Best Regards > Lola K. > > > >
