On 26.04.2016 11:26, Stefan Hett wrote:
> On 4/26/2016 10:41 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 26.04.2016 10:09, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_apache.org> wrote:
>>>> On 26.04.2016 03:48, Stefan wrote:
>>>>> On 4/21/2016 18:43, Evgeny Kotkov wrote:
>>>>>> The 1.8.16 release artifacts are now available for testing/signing.
>>>>>> Please get the tarballs from
>>>>>> and add your signatures there. I plan to try and release on April 28th
>>>>>> so please try and get your votes/signatures in place by April 27th.
>>>>> Verified integrity and file content against 1.8.16-tag in the SVN
>>>> Did you also build the sources and run the tests? It's sort of expected.
>>> I think it's fine as long as Stefan states explicitly what he has
>>> verified (which he has). It's an additional assurance from someone
>>> that says "I state that the tarball corresponds to the tag and the
>>> branch". It doesn't count for a +1 vote for our "3 votes per platform"
>>> rule, but that's fine
>> Yup, and this is why I asked. :) It may not be a binding vote but it's
>> useful to know about any passing tests on Windows, IMO.
> As Johan confirmed, I only verified the integrity of the zip archives
> this time.
> Since I wasn't too sure whether that's useful, I asked on IRC before
> and Daniel stated that as long as it's explicitly stated, it's ok (and
> to a certain degree useful :) ).
> Just wasn't able to get the testing process done in time for these
> versions, since I was lacking the time here to finish that by tomorrow
> (already spent all the time I could invest to set up the PGP keys and
> read through all the related documentation - not only Apache but also
> That said, since all of that is done now, I'm aiming to have a full
> Windows test setup-up up and running for the next version.
No worries, and thanks for clarifying. +1 to helping verify package
contents, every little bit helps, indeed.
Received on 2016-04-26 15:34:26 CEST