You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Rob Tompkins <ch...@gmail.com> on 2018/07/16 14:00:00 UTC
[release-plugin] RCs easier to create than validate
Just wanted to make note of this. But, automating validation is mildly sketchy IMO.
-Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [release-plugin] RCs easier to create than validate
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
If one can successfully automate validation, then surely it becomes
redundant, as the checks can presumably be added to the RC production?
On 16 July 2018 at 15:00, Rob Tompkins <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just wanted to make note of this. But, automating validation is mildly sketchy IMO.
>
> -Rob
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [release-plugin] RCs easier to create than validate
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 16 July 2018 at 15:42, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 8:00 AM Rob Tompkins <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just wanted to make note of this. But, automating validation is mildly
>> sketchy IMO.
>>
>
> There is a checklist called "Things To Look For When Inspecting A Release
> Candidate" on https://commons.apache.org/releases/prepare.html
>
> but it is pretty lame IMO. We should list how to:
> - Verify ASC files
> - Verify SHA files
Check that hashes agree with vote mail
> - Run and check Apache RAT
> - Run and check Clirr
> - Run and check Japicmp
> - Check a site
> - Run a build
>
> What else?
Check that source artifact contents agrees with tag.
Check that source and binary artifacts contain appropriate N&L files
at top-level or under META-INF
Check that binary artifacts don't have spurious contents (e.g. files
left in workspace or unexpected 3rd party jars)
Check that RELEASE NOTE has the correct version number
Likewise CHANGES if present.
> Gary
>
>
>> -Rob
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [release-plugin] RCs easier to create than validate
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 8:00 AM Rob Tompkins <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just wanted to make note of this. But, automating validation is mildly
> sketchy IMO.
>
There is a checklist called "Things To Look For When Inspecting A Release
Candidate" on https://commons.apache.org/releases/prepare.html
but it is pretty lame IMO. We should list how to:
- Verify ASC files
- Verify SHA files
- Run and check Apache RAT
- Run and check Clirr
- Run and check Japicmp
- Check a site
- Run a build
What else?
Gary
> -Rob
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>