I've build the tags and run the live tests for Chef and Hosted Chef. All passing except two in HostedChef: one due to a timeout, and the other one because of a known issue in HostedChef, so everything is OK in our side. I've also downloaded the dependencies from the staging repos and tested the integration with the ComputeService with jclouds-examples, Abiquo and EC2, and everything is OK.
On 30 May 2013 01:49, Andrew Bayer <[email protected]> wrote: > And fixed for the next RC I cut tomorrow. Thanks, David! > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Ah-ha, we were getting both our own definition for >> maven-remote-resources-plugin and the apache parent POM's, hence the dupes. >> Fixing to just use ours, since it's more detailed. It's LICENSE.txt and >> NOTICE.txt, fyi, so that's the one to review. >> >> A. >> >> >> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Yeah, if you check the tag, it does correspond to the git hash it's built >>> from - I just haven't pushed the branch yet for the reasons I mentioned in >>> my initial email - I wanted to use the Maven release plugin, but I don't >>> want to end up having to revert the release plugin's commits for respins, >>> at least not until we go to the official vote (at which point I'll probably >>> suck it up and deal with the reverts if respins are needed). >>> >>> Jumping on the license/notice dupe now. >>> >>> A. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:15 PM, David Nalley <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > Note - this is *not* an official vote thread, hence it not also going >>>> to >>>> > incubator@. This is an informal preliminary to the official release >>>> vote. >>>> > >>>> > I've cut the first attempt at a viable RC for 1.6.1-incubating. The >>>> bits >>>> > we'll end up voting on are in >>>> > http://people.apache.org/~abayer/jclouds-1.6.1-incubating-candidate-0/- >>>> >>>> >>>> So this is by no means an exhaustive review - I've literally spent >>>> less than 5 minutes looking. >>>> There are duplicate LICENSE and NOTICE files (looking in -multi) >>>> (LICENSE AND LICENSE.txt, and NOTICE and NOTICE.txt - and the content >>>> isn't identical. >>>> >>>> There should be only one. (I realize that NOTICE.txt might be for >>>> convenience binaries, but with the source distribution it seems to be >>>> providing inaccurate information.). >>>> >>>> I also realize that this isn't yet a real release, but see no commit >>>> hash listed to compare the tarball against the git repository. >>>> >>>> I will try and spend some time later today looking at these in depth. >>>> >>>> --David >>>> >>> >>> >>
