-1 on the RC vote
I agree that in the staged maven repository we should stick to SHOULD guidance
until such time that the maven tooling has a supported option to use correct
checksums. (Have we verified that the relevant tooling at a minimum has a
request in to add it?)
However, I can't verify
sorry, that should have been "staged maven repository should stick to MUST
guidance"
On 2018/04/15 14:11:43, Sean Busbey wrote:
> -1 on the RC vote
>
> I agree that in the staged maven repository we should stick to SHOULD
> guidance until such time that the maven tooling has a supported opt
I am trying to understand what you are looking for with your -1.
It sounds like you want following files created in
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/accumulo/1.9.0 for each release
candidate:
accumulo-1.9.0-bin.tar.gz
accumulo-1.9.0-bin.tar.gz.asc
accumulo-1.9.0-bin.tar.gz.sha512
accumulo-1
I am strongly against generating and publishing checksum information after
a vote because that ostensibly means it hasn't been verified and voted on.
On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 12:35 AM, Christopher wrote:
> Mike,
>
> We use stronger checksums (SHA512) in the SVN[1] area and downloads page[2]
> aft
+1
* verified hashes and signature
* build passed mvn clean verify -Psunny
* build passed all unit testing
* ran an accumulo instance using Uno
* verified basic functionality via the accumulo shell command
On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
> I am strongly against generating and
On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 10:11 AM Sean Busbey wrote:
> -1 on the RC vote
>
> I agree that in the staged maven repository we should stick to SHOULD
> guidance until such time that the maven tooling has a supported option to
> use correct checksums. (Have we verified that the relevant tooling at a
>
I don't have strong feelings about how we implement hosting the RC, but I do
want the RC to contain the actual checksum that we're going to use when we
publish on dist.a.o in the release.
Otherwise we're not verifying that said checksum is correct for the artifact
we're voting on, which is part
On 2018/04/15 21:39:04, Christopher wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 10:11 AM Sean Busbey wrote:
>
> > -1 on the RC vote
> >
> > I agree that in the staged maven repository we should stick to SHOULD
> > guidance until such time that the maven tooling has a supported option to
> > use correct
Does "strongly against" in this case mean "-1" or still "-0" ?
On 2018/04/15 17:24:33, Mike Drob wrote:
> I am strongly against generating and publishing checksum information after
> a vote because that ostensibly means it hasn't been verified and voted on.
>
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 12:35 AM,
On 2018/04/16 01:26:54, Sean Busbey wrote:
>
>
> On 2018/04/15 21:39:04, Christopher wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 10:11 AM Sean Busbey wrote:
> >
> >
> > > However, I can't verify that the source artifact or any other artifacts
> > > that we'll eventually place in dist.a.o/release
On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 9:30 PM Sean Busbey wrote:
>
>
> On 2018/04/16 01:26:54, Sean Busbey wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2018/04/15 21:39:04, Christopher wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 10:11 AM Sean Busbey
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > However, I can't verify that the source artifact or any oth
11 matches
Mail list logo
