Fwd: [VOTE] Release Apache Accumulo 1.3.5-incubating (rc8)

[Lewis John Mcgibbney <le...@gmail.com>]

Hi Guys,

Just clocked this email on the incubators list. It concerns the Keys file,
which I think we agreed to remove from the forthcoming Nutch 1.5 (~6
months).

Does this affect us as Nutch is a tlp? Or is this type of thing limited to
podlings?

All the best

Lewis

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: sebb <se...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Accumulo 1.3.5-incubating (rc8)
To: general@incubator.apache.org


On 2 December 2011 10:50, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29 November 2011 14:24, Eric Newton <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is the first incubator release for Apache Accumulo, with the
artifacts
>> versioned as 1.3.5-incubating.
>>
>> VOTE:
>>
>>
http://www.mail-archive.com/accumulo-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg00939.html
>>
>>
>> RESULT:
>>
>>
http://www.mail-archive.com/accumulo-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg01038.html
>>
>>
>> SVN source tag:
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/accumulo/tags/1.3.5rc8/
>>
>>
>> Release artifacts:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~ecn

Cannot find KEYS file to verify the sigs.

A link to the KEYS file should be provided in the VOTE mail.
It's not sufficient that the key be listed on public key servers
(which this one is, which is good).

The md5 and sha hash files have an unusual format that is unlikely to
be recognised by many automated checkers.

For example:

accumulo-1.3.5-incubating-rc8-dist.tar.gz.md5 contains:
>>>
target/accumulo-1.3.5-incubating-rc8-dist.tar.gz:
B5 66 26 C8 20 3B 3D 2C  ED 3F 81 9A 29 0E 28 60
<<<

The target/ prefix is spurious, and normally the hash is on the same
line, for example:

>>>
B56626C8203B3D2CED3F819A290E2860
target/accumulo-1.3.5-incubating-rc8-dist.tar.gz
<<<

However, the source archive does agree with the SVN tag which is good.

The dist archive also for some reason includes all the source, which
agrees with the SVN tag except for the file
  src/user_manual/accumulo_user_manual.toc
which slightly different from the SVN version.

I would not expect the dist archive to duplicate the source; but
perhaps there is a good reason.
If so, then at least the source part needs to be identical to SVN.

Though it looks more like the source was accidentally included,
perhaps because source and generated output share the same directory
structure?

The dist archive includes apidocs and user manual which is good.

Also contains various jar files, which is also OK except that the 3rd
party jars need to be properly documented in the NOTICE and LICENSE
files.

Ideally, the jar files created from Accumulo source should contain
their own N & L files in the META-INF directory.
For example, see how the included Apache commons-* jars do it.
This becomes essential if the jars are to be released independently,
for example to Maven Central.

The cloudtrace jar classes have the package name cloudtrace/xxxx

I assume this is going to change before graduation?
In which case, I think there may be an issue with the Maven pom id.
Currently it uses:
 <groupId>org.apache.accumulo</groupId>
 <artifactId>cloudtrace</artifactId>

If the package name is changed, then one or both of the above need to
change as well, otherwise Maven won't be able to resolve dependencies
correctly where multiple versions are used (long story).

> -1
>
> The NOTICE file references non-Apache Licenses, but they are not in
> the LICENSES file.
>
> I've not yet done any other checks, but IMO this is a blocker.
>
>> Vote closes in 72 hours.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org




-- 
*Lewis*