Sorry for reporting the bug too late, but the test that detected it was related to a new feature of our system finalized just days ago so the right test was not there when I voted on RC1.
On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 21:13, Vladimir Sitnikov <[email protected]> wrote: > Julian>Can we keep it consistent please? > > It's good to find bugs like this, but it's depressing to only be > finding them in RC3. > > Frankly speaking, I find it too much repetition to have calcite- in a > version name. > We do not have Avatica in the repository, so why should we have long > versions like calcite-...-...--.. ? > > >It's good to find bugs like this, but it's depressing to only be > >finding them in RC3 > > I think the approach here is: > 1) Integrate the checks (e.g. Zoomdata) to PR CI and/or to daily CI job > 2) Ensure that the vote email contains the exact sequence of commands to > validate the release. For instance: download, verify checksum, verify pgp, > unzip, build, test, etc, etc. The sequence can easily be automated, and I > don't really see much point in everybody doing those checks manually. > > Note: the current release archive is reproducible. That means everybody who > creates the release archive should end up with exactly the same file. > > Vladimir > -- Best regards, Anton.
