Chris:

This time I get:

        gpg: Good signature from "Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org>"

So I am now +1 to release!

Thanks Chris!
--k

PS: You might want to revoke your two older keys and make FD01FEDB the go-to.


Chris Mattmann wrote:
Can you try now – I updated with the KEYS file from Master that has my new KEY. 
For whatever
reason it didn’t make it into the tag, which I think is fine, since master 
always has the latest
and greatest.



On 12/20/17, 8:58 AM, "Sean Kelly"<ke...@apache.org>  wrote:

     Thanks Chris!

     I imported the KEYS but I still get

        gpg: Can't check signature: No public key

     Is it possible you signed this with a newly generated key that's not in
     the KEYS file?

     --k

     Chris Mattmann wrote:
     >  KEYS file added! ( do I have your +1? (
     >
     >
     >
     >  On 12/20/17, 8:38 AM, "Sean Kelly"<ke...@apache.org>   wrote:
     >
     >       Strangely this (and the release announcement) ended up in my spam 
folder.
     >
     >       Here goes:
     >
     >       MD5: ✓
     >       SHA1: ✓
     >       Python tests: ✓
     >       Java tests: ✓
     >       Signature: gpg: Can't check signature: No public key
     >
     >       Don't we also put a convenience copy of the KEYS file in the 
release dir?
     >
     >       Take care
     >       --k
     >       >   Chris Mattmann<mailto:mattm...@apache.org>
     >       >   2017-12-19 at 8.50 p
     >       >   Ping (
     >       >
     >       >   Can I get 2 more VOTEs here so I can push this release out? 
It’s kind
     >       >   of needed for DRAT.
     >       >   We can release a 1.2.2 with Tom’s patch later, but would 
really love
     >       >   to release this. Thanks.
     >       >
     >       >   Cheers,
     >       >   Chris
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >   On 11/12/17, 9:53 AM, "Chris Mattmann"<mattm...@apache.org>   
wrote:
     >       >
     >       >   Hi Folks,
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >   I have posted a 1st release candidate for the Apache OODT 1.2.1
     >       >   release. The
     >       >
     >       >   source code is at:
     >       >
     >       >   https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/oodt/
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >   For more detailed information, see the included CHANGES.txt 
file for
     >       >   details on
     >       >
     >       >   release contents and latest changes. The release was made 
using the OODT
     >       >
     >       >   release process, documented on the Wiki here:
     >       >
     >       >   
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OODT/Release+Process
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >   The release was made from the OODT 1.2 tag at:
     >       >
     >       >   https://github.com/apache/oodt/tree/1.2.1/
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >   A staged Maven repository is available at:
     >       >
     >       >   
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheoodt-1015/
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >   Please vote on releasing these packages as Apache OODT 1.2.1. 
The vote is
     >       >
     >       >   open for at least the next 72 hours.
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >   Only votes from OODT PMC are binding, but folks are welcome to 
check the
     >       >
     >       >   release candidate and voice their approval or disapproval. The 
vote passes
     >       >
     >       >   if at least three binding +1 votes are cast.
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >   [ ] +1 Release the packages as Apache OODT 1.2.1
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >   [ ] -1 Do not release the packages because...
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >   Thanks!
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >   Chris
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >   P.S. Here is my +1.
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >
     >       >
     >
     >
     >



Reply via email to