On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:40 PM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 21 September 2014 13:44, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On September 21, 2014 1:39:40 PM CEST, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > >>On 21 September 2014 12:27, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> On Sun, 2014-09-21 at 12:12 +0100, sebb wrote: > >>>> On 21 September 2014 11:58, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> > >>wrote: > >>>> > On Sun, 2014-09-21 at 11:54 +0100, sebb wrote: > >>>> >> On 21 September 2014 11:22, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> > >>wrote: > >>>> >> > On Sun, 2014-09-21 at 00:52 +0100, sebb wrote: > >>>> >> >> On 20 September 2014 13:49, Oleg Kalnichevski > >><[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> >> >> > On Sat, 2014-09-20 at 08:37 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote: > >>>> >> >> >> I do not understand why there is not a link to a pre-built > >>site for this RC. > >>>> >> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > > >>>> >> >> > Website is not a release artifact and is not a part of the > >>release > >>>> >> >> > process. > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> No, but the RM is expected to run at least the RAT and Clirr > >>reports, > >>>> >> >> and include them in the vote e-mail to show that these have > >>been done. > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > mvn clirr:check apache-rat:check > >>>> >> > >>>> >> That does not show the output. > >>>> >> > >>>> > > >>>> > It performs necessary validation. > >>>> > >>>> I meant that showing the command needed to check the release does > >>not > >>>> document that it has been run as part of the release checking, nor > >>>> does it document the result of running the check. > >>>> > >>> > >>> We only vote on source tarball and nothing else. Source tarball > >>either > >>> meets certain criteria or it does not. > >> > >>Those criteria must include RAT and should include Clirr. > > > > Yes, just do > > > > mvn clirr:check apache-rat:check > > >> > >>> But as I said before you are welcome to extend release tools to > >>generate > >>> whatever reports you desire. > >> > >>Just because I report an issue with a process does not mean I have to > >>be the one to fix it. > >> > > > > Right. Naturally it is better to have other people do useless work than > do useless work yourself. > > It is not useless work. > The RM must - and reviewers should - run the RAT and Clirr checks. > This needs to be documented as part of the release voting. >
I agree that the RM and reviewers must run or check these reports. It sure would waste less time if the reports were provided or instructions provided (I added some instructions to BUILDING.txt files yesterday FWIW). Gary > > > Oleg > > -- > > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] > > -- E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
