Yes - the key issue is just due to me creating new keys this time around. Anyways let's take another stab at this. In the mean time, please don't hesitate to test the release itself.
- Patrick On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Got it. Ignore the SHA512 issue since these aren't somehow expected by > a policy or Maven to be in a certain format. Just wondered if the > difference was intended. > > The Maven way of generated the SHA1 hashes is to set this on the > install plugin, AFAIK, although I'm not sure if the intent was to hash > files that Maven didn't create: > > <configuration> > <createChecksum>true</createChecksum> > </configuration> > > As for the key issue, I think it's just a matter of uploading the new > key in both places. > > We should all of course test the release anyway. > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Patrick Wendell <pwend...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hey Sean, >> >> The release script generates hashes in two places (take a look a bit >> further down in the script), one for the published artifacts and the >> other for the binaries. In the case of the binaries we use SHA512 >> because, AFAIK, the ASF does not require you to use SHA1 and SHA512 is >> better. In the case of the published Maven artifacts we use SHA1 >> because my understanding is this is what Maven requires. However, it >> does appear that the format is now one that maven cannot parse. >> >> Anyways, it seems fine to just change the format of the hash per your PR. >> >> - Patrick >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org
