On 27 June 2014 20:44, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 17:56 +0100, sebb wrote: >> 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. >> > > What's wrong with 'mvn clirr:check', which is a part of the release > process anyway? One is welcome to add RAT maven plugin as well.
My point is that these reports should be part of the RC VOTE. >> 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. >> > > KEYS file is at its standard location [1] but I can put this url into I would say the standard location is http://www.apache.org/disk/<tlpname>/KEYS At least that is where most other TLPs seem to keep it. > the vote message template if you think it would add value. Please. Apart from the fact that the KEYS file is in a different place from other projects, it is useful because: - can copy/paste the mail contents easily - it is a required part of the voting so should be documented in the mail > Oleg > > [1] > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/httpcomponents/httpclient/KEYS > > >> [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] >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
