On 29 June 2014 12:55, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 01:14 +0100, sebb wrote: >> On 28 June 2014 09:28, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Sat, 2014-06-28 at 00:24 +0100, sebb wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> >> > >> > Right, and 'mvn clirr:check' gives you exactly that report. Voting on >> > some pre-generated report or website is _idiocy_ because there is no way >> > of telling if those reports actually match the release artifacts voted >> > upon. >> >> There's also no way to be sure that the binaries agree with the source. > > And here we go. Voting on binary artifacts is equally stupid. The only
Sorry, that was a bad analogy. But there are some aspects of binary artifacts that can - and should - be checked. For example, sigs, hashes, NOTICE and LICENSE. Ensuring that the binary artifacts don't contain bundled items that should not be present. Ensuring that jars have suitable MANIFEST entries > thing we should be voting on is source tarball. But who cares? Playing > ASF police is just too much fun, isn't it? That was unnecessary. > 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]
