+1 I tested install and ran the test suite against recent qpidd master on Fedora 25.
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6 March 2017 at 11:08, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 4 March 2017 at 01:33, Justin Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, everyone. This our first release candidate for the Qpid Python > 1.36.0 > >> release. Please test in your environment, report what you find, and > then > >> vote to approve or reject the release. > >> > >> Source distribution: > >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/qpid/python/1.36.0-rc1/ > >> > >> Tag: > >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=qpid-python.git;a= > shortlog;h=refs/tags/1.36.0-rc1 > >> > >> Branch: > >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=qpid-python.git;a= > shortlog;h=refs/heads/1.36.x > >> > >> Issues: > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=fixVersion% > 20%3D%20qpid-python-1.36.0%20AND%20project%20%3D%20QPID > > > > +1 > > > > I tested the RC out as follows: > > - Verified the signature and checksum files (note the .sha changed to > SHA-256). > > - Checked LICENCE+NOTICE files present, year updated in the latter. > > - Ran RAT on the extracted archive. > > - Did a user local install of the package. > > - Ran the hello example against Qpid Broker for Java 6.1.1. > > > > Robbie > > Based on discussion in thread "[DISCUSS] release checksum filename > extension", I think maybe we should consider changing the .sha > checksum to use SHA512 rather than SHA256. > > Robbie > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
