Thanks for taking the time to participate! The vote has passed with 3x +1 and no other votes.
Voting +1 were: Adrian, Andriy, and Tommy. Andriy's vote will be carried on the IPMC vote. I will continue the process by initiating the IPMC vote. Jorge On 5/27/19 5:08 PM, Tommy Ludwig wrote:
+1 I checked: [PASS] Source archive has expected name [PASS] SHA512 checksum is correct [PASS] Provided GPG key is in KEYS file [PASS] GPG signature is valid, made with the provided key [PASS] Base dir in archive has expected name [PASS] Git tree at provided revision matches source archive [PASS] DISCLAIMER and NOTICE look good [PASS] LICENSE looks good [PASS] No binary files in the release [PASS] Source builds and tests pass (`mvn test`) On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 8:08 PM Andriy Redko <[email protected]> wrote:Sure, sounds good Adrian! Thank you! Best Regards, Andriy Redko Tuesday, May 21, 2019, 2:35:00 AM, you wrote: Thanks, Andriy. We have been working with the understanding that we get "mvn test" to execute as many projects include integration tests that have some workstation sensitivity, but are not required to execute for the project to pass tests (unit tests). For example, we have no plans to be a docker support organization either and some projects use docker for heavy tests. Instead of deleting these integration tests or moving them to a separate repository, solely to pass the source verification.. we classify them under integration tests which means they are invoked when people use the "verify" goal instead of "test" which some actually dont know about, but heh was precisely what you used. In other words we explicitly had these as ITxx to prevent needing to support exactly what you asked about. Moreover, we have had this exact discussion before in zipkin brave karaf, probably you maybe forgot that. Is there something in our README that is telling someone to use verify implicitly? if so we should add skipITs to that in the next release. If not, I would suggest we don't repeat the conversation about integration tests on every package we release as there will be nothing different between these conversations and having them might introduce FUD when we go for IPMC or yet another thing to talk about, for every repo, when what is being discussed is not required for someone to build and test the software and also formerly discussed and came to conclusion. make sense? -A On Tue, May 21, 2019, 4:27 AM Andriy Redko <[email protected]> wrote: +1, binding SHA512 checksum matches Naming conventions are followed GPG signature verified LICENSE, DISCLAIMER and NOTICE file exist and look good No binary files in the source archive The project builds successfuly, the tests are passing (but not integration ones, see please below) When running 'mvn clean verify' on Windows box, I have got consistent 'zipkin2.reporter.kafka08.ITKafkaSender' failure: [ERROR] Process Exit Code: 0 [ERROR] Crashed tests: [ERROR] zipkin2.reporter.kafka08.ITKafkaSender [ERROR] at org.apache.maven.plugin.surefire.booterclient.ForkStarter.awaitResultsDone(ForkStarter.java:511) [ERROR] at org.apache.maven.plugin.surefire.booterclient.ForkStarter.runSuitesForkPerTestSet(ForkStarter.java:458) [ERROR] at org.apache.maven.plugin.surefire.booterclient.ForkStarter.run(ForkStarter.java:299) [ERROR] at org.apache.maven.plugin.surefire.booterclient.ForkStarter.run(ForkStarter.java:247) [ERROR] at org.apache.maven.plugin.surefire.AbstractSurefireMojo.executeProvider(AbstractSurefireMojo.java:1161) [ERROR] at org.apache.maven.plugin.surefire.AbstractSurefireMojo.executeAfterPreconditionsChecked(AbstractSurefireMojo.java:1002) [ERROR] at org.apache.maven.plugin.surefire.AbstractSurefireMojo.execute(AbstractSurefireMojo.java:848) [ERROR] at org.apache.maven.plugin.DefaultBuildPluginManager.executeMojo(DefaultBuildPluginManager.java:137) [ERROR] at org.apache.maven.lifecycle.internal.MojoExecutor.execute(MojoExecutor.java:208) [ERROR] at org.apache.maven.lifecycle.internal.MojoExecutor.execute(MojoExecutor.java:154) [ERROR] at org.apache.maven.lifecycle.internal.MojoExecutor.execute(MojoExecutor.java:146) [ERROR] at org.apache.maven.lifecycle.internal.LifecycleModuleBuilder.buildProject(LifecycleModuleBuilder.java:117) [ERROR] at org.apache.maven.lifecycle.internal.LifecycleModuleBuilder.buildProject(LifecycleModuleBuilder.java:81) [ERROR] at org.apache.maven.lifecycle.internal.builder.singlethreaded.SingleThreadedBuilder.build(SingleThreadedBuilder.java:56) [ERROR] at org.apache.maven.lifecycle.internal.LifecycleStarter.execute(LifecycleStarter.java:128) [ERROR] at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.doExecute(DefaultMaven.java:305) [ERROR] at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.doExecute(DefaultMaven.java:192) [ERROR] at org.apache.maven.DefaultMaven.execute(DefaultMaven.java:105) [ERROR] at org.apache.maven.cli.MavenCli.execute(MavenCli.java:956) It seems to be known 'kafka-junit' issue [0] and in my opinion, this is not a blocker for release. [0] https://github.com/charithe/kafka-junit/issues/25 Best Regards, Andriy Redko JQ> Hello Zipkin Community, JQ> This is a call for the vote to release Apache Zipkin Reporter (incubating) version JQ> 2.8.3. JQ> The release candidates: JQ> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/zipkin/zipkin-reporter-java/2.8.3/ JQ> Git tag for the release: JQ> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zipkin-reporter-java/tree/v2.8.3 JQ> Hash for the release tag: e6791fcd4081fb58cd9d5f7e3eac42fbbb034d51 JQ> Release Notes: JQ> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zipkin-reporter-java/releases/tag/v2.8.3 JQ> The artifacts have been signed with Key: 50D90C2C, which can be found in JQ> the keys file: JQ> https://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/zipkin/KEYS JQ> Verification Hints: JQ> For your convenience, the below includes a detailed how-to on verifying a JQ> source release. Please note that this document is a JQ> work-in-progress JQ> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZIPKIN/Verifying+a+Source+Release JQ> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours or until the necessary number JQ> of votes are reached. JQ> Please vote accordingly: JQ> [ ] +1 approve JQ> [ ] +0 no opinion JQ> [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason JQ> Thanks, JQ> The Apache Zipkin (Incubating) Team --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
