Hi Gary,
On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 at 13:58, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote:
> Please include whatever instructions you want folks to run in the vote
> email to prove reproducibility. Then at least we can agree on what it
> means to do the reproducibility check and when it passes or fails,
> assuming it's a binary property.
The steps to check reproducibility are in the vote e-mail:
# Verify reproduciblity
umask 0022
unzip *-src.zip -d src
cd src
export
NEXUS_REPO=https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachelogging-1254
sh mvnw -Prelease verify artifact:compare -Dreference.repo=$NEXUS_REPO
> A long-standing pet peeve of mine is PMC members (in many projects,
> I'm not singling out Log4j here) that vote on a release candidate
> without stating _what_ they did to check the viability of said
> release.
>
> If this matters, it should be an Apache requirement, which it is not ATM
> AFAIK.
I agree, there should be some minimal best practices for release
verification. If Apache Security does not want ATM to set some
guidelines, I wouldn't mind if Apache Commons did.
BTW I cited your vote mail in this thread, mostly because you always
describe what you are checking.
>From the votes of some PMC members it is impossible to deduce what was checked.
Piotr
