+1 (jfeinauer)
I found some (very minor things)
- I found a (very minor) typo in the RELEASE_NOTES (last PJA -> JPA):
"A new OPM module was added, which allows JPA like read-communication using
POJOs, very similar to PJA."
- We do not have a md5 hash included this time, so I was only able to check
sha512, but I guess that’s also fine as [1] states that releases have to be
signed but not that they have to be signed with multiple methods
Due to missing md5 I had to change the tools/ scripts a bit.
Checks performed:
- Checked out using the new tooling: OK
- Checked signatures: OK
- Checked the zip correctly unpacks to the expected directory structure: OK
- verify the existence of DISCLAIMER, LICENSE, NOTICE, README,
RELEASE_NOTES: OK
- Checked the contents of DISCLAIMER, LICENSE, NOTICE, README,
RELEASE_NOTES: Somewhat OK
- run `./mvnw clean install` on my Machine with OS X 10.11.6
[1] https://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing.html
Am 17.11.18, 16:35 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <[email protected]>:
+1 (binding) (cdutz)
Checks performed:
- Checked out using the new tooling: OK
- Checked signatures: OK
- [RM] Checked signature is from a valid Apache signature referencing a
valid Apache-Email address: OK
gpg: Korrekte Signatur von "Christofer Dutz (Apache Comitter)
<[email protected]>" [ultimativ]
- Checked the zip correctly unpacks to the expected directory structure: OK
- [RM] Checked the "incubating" in the name of the artifacts: OK
- verify the existence of DISCLAIMER, LICENSE, NOTICE, README,
RELEASE_NOTES: OK
- [RM] Check the RC README and RELEASE_NOTES matches that of the source
bundle: OK
- Checked the contents of DISCLAIMER, LICENSE, NOTICE, README,
RELEASE_NOTES: Somewhat OK
We did add a mention of the google example containing one file copyrighted
by google. But it turned out that this mention is only added to the LICENSE
file of the google example artifacts themselves.
Unfortunately the source archive also contains this file, but the mention
has to be manually added ... this will be the case in the following release.
As it wasn't critical last time, I guess we should be ok.
- Built from sources (including tests) according to instructions in README:
OK
. [RM] Check content of rat.txt: OK (Site images and PCAP(NG) files are
only binaries)
- All tests pass: OK
Am 17.11.18, 16:07 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <[email protected]>:
Ups ... the one link [2] was wrong:
Please use this instead:
[2]
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/plc4x/0.2.0-incubating/rc1
Chris
Am 17.11.18, 16:04 schrieb "Christofer Dutz"
<[email protected]>:
Apache PLC4X (Incubating) 0.2.0 has been staged under [2] and it’s
time to vote
on accepting it for release. All Maven artifacts are available
under [1].
If approved we will seek final release approval from the IPMC.
Voting will be open for 72hr.
A minimum of 3 binding +1 votes and more binding +1 than binding -1
are required to pass.
Release tag: release/0.2.0
Hash for the release tag: d7dc61fb7b68056b9d6731e8fdfd1ef757595f45
Per [3] "Before voting +1 [P]PMC members are required to download
the signed source code package, compile it as provided, and test
the resulting executable on their own platform, along with also
verifying that the package meets the requirements of the ASF policy
on releases."
You can achieve the above by following [4].
[ ] +1 accept (indicate what you validated - e.g. performed the
non-RM items in [4])
[ ] -1 reject (explanation required)
[1]
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheplc4x-1000
[2]
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/plc4x/0.1.0-incubating/rc1
[3] https://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
[4]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/PLC4X/Validating+a+staged+Release
