I took a look at rc0 also and did not see any problems.

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Mike Walch <mwa...@apache.org> wrote:
> I checked over rc0 and didn't find any issues.  While rc1 needs to be
> latest commit, the release artifacts look good.
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 5:32 PM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> My plan is to submit an RC1 for a vote tomorrow.
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 4:39 PM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > This is just a test. I'll keep the staging repo around until we get to a
>> > final approved release. Mainly right now what I'm looking for is a sanity
>> > check to make sure that the build artifacts pushed to the staging repo
>> are
>> > what we expect.... things like jars, tarballs, etc., all named
>> correctly...
>> > no unexpected shaded or test jars, or anything else we didn't expect to
>> get
>> > pushed.
>> >
>> > This test staging repo is mostly about getting the build system correct
>> > and the wording of the email template right, and less about actually
>> > testing the contents (though, that's welcome too).
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 4:27 PM Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> -1  because would like to get a few API changes in that were just made
>> >> in before releasing 1.0.0.
>> >>
>> >> I have not had a chance to review this RC.  I would still like to
>> >> review this RC to look for any issues witht he release process.  I
>> >> plan to look at it Mon morning, can we keep the staging repo around
>> >> till then?
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 10:31 PM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > The following is a test of my script from
>> >> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-fluo/pull/769
>> >> > Please begin reviewing what it has produced so I can iron out the
>> >> release
>> >> > process a bit, and so you can find any build-bugs prior to a release
>> >> > candidate vote with RC1.
>> >> >
>> >> > =====
>> >> > Fluo Developers,
>> >> >
>> >> > Please consider the following candidate for Fluo 1.0.0-incubating.
>> >> >
>> >> > Git Commit:
>> >> >     f7a7aaf194ec2c0bef85d97e7ce939232d9a1491
>> >> > Branch:
>> >> >     1.0.0-incubating-rc0
>> >> >
>> >> > If this vote passes, a gpg-signed tag will be created using:
>> >> >     git tag -f -m 'Apache Fluo 1.0.0-incubating' -s
>> >> > rel/fluo-1.0.0-incubating \
>> >> >     f7a7aaf194ec2c0bef85d97e7ce939232d9a1491
>> >> >
>> >> > Staging repo:
>> >> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachefluo-1011
>> >> > Source (official release artifact):
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachefluo-1011/org/apache/fluo/fluo/1.0.0-incubating/fluo-1.0.0-incubating-source-release.tar.gz
>> >> > Binary:
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachefluo-1011/org/apache/fluo/fluo/1.0.0-incubating/fluo-1.0.0-incubating-bin.tar.gz
>> >> > (Append ".sha1", ".md5", or ".asc" to download the signature/hash for
>> a
>> >> > given artifact.)
>> >> >
>> >> > All artifacts were built and staged with:
>> >> >     mvn release:prepare && mvn release:perform
>> >> >
>> >> > Signing keys are available at
>> >> > https://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/fluo/KEYS
>> >> > (Expected fingerprint: 8CC4F8A2B29C2B040F2B835D6F0CDAE700B6899D)
>> >> >
>> >> > Release notes (in progress) can be found at:
>> >> > https://fluo.apache.org/.../1.0.0-incubating
>> >> >
>> >> > Please vote one of:
>> >> > [ ] +1 - I have verified and accept...
>> >> > [ ] +0 - I have reservations, but not strong enough to vote against...
>> >> > [ ] -1 - Because..., I do not accept...
>> >> > ... these artifacts as the 1.0.0-incubating release of Apache Fluo.
>> >> >
>> >> > This vote will end on Sun Sep 18 02:30:00 UTC 2016
>> >> > (Sat Sep 17 22:30:00 EDT 2016 / Sat Sep 17 19:30:00 PDT 2016)
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks!
>> >> >
>> >> > P.S. Hint: download the whole staging repo with
>> >> >     wget -erobots=off -r -l inf -np -nH \
>> >> >
>> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachefluo-1011/
>> >> >     # note the trailing slash is needed
>> >>
>> >
>>

Reply via email to