I'm inclined to agree with Gary that the site is important as a help when reviewing the RC.
Apart from the RAT report, there is the Clirr report. Also, the RC VOTE e-mail should contain the KEYS URL. Yes, I know I can hunt around and find it, but it should really be present to enable the sigs to be checked. [BTW, I now have a shell script which can automatically check sigs against a specific KEYS file. I can add that to SVN somewhere if it would be of use to others] On 27 June 2014 17:25, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 11:57 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 10:57 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote: >> > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 10:19 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote: >> > > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Gary Gregory < >> > [email protected]> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski < >> > [email protected]> >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 08:17 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote: >> > > > > >> > Why no site? >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> *sigh* because site is not part of release artifacts. >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Yes, but as part of the release process it would help reviewing >> > the RC >> > > > by >> > > > > > looking at reports. >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > For example, how do I know all files have the right license header >> > > > without >> > > > > a RAT report? >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Like, by running RAT against the source dist, no? >> > > > >> > > >> > > Hm, I consider it part of the RM's duty to create all of these reports. >> > > >> > > The people how VOTE can inspect the reports... >> > > >> > >> > RM's duty based on what? RM's duty is produce release artifacts. Nether >> > site content nor reports of any sort are not release artifacts. >> > >> >> I beg to differ. By not producing Maven reports for RAT, FindBugs, PMD, >> Surefire and so on, you are making the job of reviewers harder, not easier. >> Over at Commons and Logging, we produce a full site with reports as part of >> a VOTE. >> > > You are very welcome to do so. However, we have a certain release > process, too [1]. You are also very welcome to propose improvements to > that process and add things you deem important if they are missing. But > pointing out that something has not been done in a _release vote_ is not > very constructive, is it? If it is not a blocker, can we discuss it > _after_ the vote and actually move on with the vote? If it is a blocker > by all of means feel free to vote accordingly. > > Oleg > > [1] http://wiki.apache.org/HttpComponents/HttpComponentsReleaseProcess > >> Is every reviewer going to manually run a Maven RAT report? I doubt it, and >> in the case of RAT, it is a crucial part of the process. >> >> Gary >> >> >> > >> > Oleg >> > >> > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > >> > >> >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
