Many thanks Chris for the PRs and pointers so I can continue learning about
the release project and improving :)
Will try chain signatures with other people

El dom., 29 mar. 2020 a las 14:03, Christofer Dutz (<
[email protected]>) escribió:

> +1 (Non-Binding)
>
> Chris
>
> - All artifacts downloaded: OK
> - Verified the signature: OK (No trust root chain however ... you should
> go to a key-signing event with other Apache folks)
>         gpg --verify compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-source-release.zip.asc
> compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-source-release.zip
> - Signature refers to an apache email: OK
> - Validated the SHA512 hash: OK
>         shasum -a512 compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-source-release.zip
> - Unzips correctly: OK
> - Check existence of LICENSE and NOTICE files: OK (README and
> RELEASE_NOTES are not mandatory)
> - Check contents of NOTICE file: MINOR (See notes at end)
> - All files have Apache headers in them: MINOR (See notes at end)
> - No SNAPSHOT references: OK
> - Build with "mvn clean install": OK
>
>
> NOTES:
>
> NOTICE: It seems we are missing the attribution to Adobe, however the
> initial commit already had the default Apache header with no attributions
> to Adobe and it's just one file: UnknownTreePatternInputOutput ... usually
> one file doesn't require attribution in the NOTICE file, so I think it's ok
> to proceed. I added a PR which will add Adobe in the NOTICE files in future
> releases.
>
> Headers: It seems when I initially wrote some of the code I used the 3rd
> party Apache header ... I created a PR to fix all of these files. However
> this shouldn't be considered a blocker to the release.
>
>
> Am 28.03.20, 17:55 schrieb "Carlos Rovira" <[email protected]>:
>
>     +1 (Binding)
>
>     - Package:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/royale/compiler-build-tools/1.2.0/compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-source-release.zip
>     - Java: 1.8.0_181
>     - OS: Mac OS X x86_64 10.15.3
>     - Signatures and hashes fine
>     - No unexpected binary files
>     - Can compile from source with test
>     - Check In actual Apache Royale development branch
>     - Tested Tour De Jewel example working as expected
>
>
>     El sáb., 28 mar. 2020 a las 12:23, Carlos Rovira (<
> [email protected]>)
>     escribió:
>
>     > Ok Thanks Chris,
>     > I think now is fixed :)
>     >
>     > El sáb., 28 mar. 2020 a las 11:26, Christofer Dutz (<
>     > [email protected]>) escribió:
>     >
>     >> Hi Carlos,
>     >>
>     >> not checked the release yet however Apache requires sha512
> checksums and
>     >> doesn't like md5 and sha1 ...
>     >> Please check that you're sort of doing it like described here:
>     >> https://plc4x.apache.org/developers/release/release.html
>     >>
>     >> Chris
>     >>
>     >> Am 28.03.20, 11:16 schrieb "Carlos Rovira" <[email protected]
> >:
>     >>
>     >>     Hi all,
>     >>
>     >>     sorry the link to the 1.2.0 artifacts was wrong. The right one
> is
>     >> this:
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/royale/compiler-build-tools/1.2.0/
>     >>
>     >>     Thanks
>     >>
>     >>     Carlos
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>     El sáb., 28 mar. 2020 a las 11:00, Carlos Rovira (<
>     >> [email protected]>)
>     >>     escribió:
>     >>
>     >>     > Hi,
>     >>     >
>     >>     > This is the vote for the 1.2.0 release of Compiler Build
> Tools.
>     >>     >
>     >>     > We solved some issues needed for reproducible releases of
> Apache
>     >> Royale in
>     >>     > this compiler build tools release:
>     >>     >
>     >>     > The release candidate can be found in this staging repository:
>     >>     >
>     >>     >
>     >>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/royale/compiler-build-tools/1.2.0/
>     >>     >
>     >>     > Before voting please review the section,'What are the ASF
>     >> requirements on
>     >>     > approving a release?', at:
>     >>     > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
>     >>     >
>     >>     > At a minimum you would be expected to check that:
>     >>     > - SHA and signed packages are correct
>     >>     > - README, RELEASE_NOTES, NOTICE and LICENSE files are all fine
>     >>     > - That you can use the new release in Apache Royale build
> script
>     >> (maven or
>     >>     > ant) and build script completes successfully.
>     >>     > - That you can compile and cross-compile a simple example
> using the
>     >> SDK.
>     >>     >
>     >>     > The KEYS file is at
>     >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/royale/KEYS
>     >>     >
>     >>     > Maven artifacts are staged here:
>     >>     >
>     >>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheroyale-1062
>     >>     >
>     >>     > Please vote to approve this release:
>     >>     > +1 Approve the release
>     >>     > -1 Disapprove the release (please provide specific comments
> to why)
>     >>     >
>     >>     > This vote will be open for 72 hours or until a result can be
> called.
>     >>     >
>     >>     > The vote passes if there is:
>     >>     > - At least 3 +1 votes from the PMC
>     >>     > - More positive votes than negative votes
>     >>     >
>     >>     > Remember that this is a 'beta-quality' release so expect there
>     >>     > will be many bugs found.  IMO the goal is not to try to find
> and
>     >> fix bugs
>     >>     > in the RC, but to make sure we have the packaging right, and
> enough
>     >>     > functionality that folks will have some success trying to use
> it.
>     >>     >
>     >>     > People who are not in PMC are also encouraged to test out the
>     >> release and
>     >>     > vote, although their votes will not be binding, they can
> influence
>     >> how the
>     >>     > PMC votes.
>     >>     >
>     >>     > When voting please indicate what OS, IDE, Flash Player
> version and
>     >> AIR
>     >>     > version you tested with.
>     >>     >
>     >>     > Please put all discussion about this release in the DISCUSSION
>     >> thread not
>     >>     > this VOTE thread.
>     >>     >
>     >>     > Thanks
>     >>     > --
>     >>     > Carlos Rovira
>     >>     > http://about.me/carlosrovira
>     >>     >
>     >>     >
>     >>
>     >>     --
>     >>     Carlos Rovira
>     >>     http://about.me/carlosrovira
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >
>     > --
>     > Carlos Rovira
>     > http://about.me/carlosrovira
>     >
>     >
>
>     --
>     Carlos Rovira
>     http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>
>

-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Reply via email to