+1 (binding)
* Verified sha checksums on all release artifacts
* Verified sha512 checksum matched the one in vote thread
* Verified GPG fingerprint matched expected "F9BF248E".
* Verified source artifact contents matched the rc4 branch sans .dotfiles
* Verified LICENSE file and NOTICE file content
Seems reasonable! Thanks for the explanation.
1. Next time I recommend testing with as many rc0's as you need, then
starting at rc1, because it only really becomes a release candidate once
it's presented to the mailing list for a vote. If that turns out to be
inconvenient or impossible for some te
+1 (binding)
* Validated signatures and checksums
* Verified license and notice files in archives
* Verified license headers in soue with mvn apache-rat:check
* Ran the full build and tests
* Tested out the project with a bunch of examples with different input
using the instructions on the wiki
On
+1 (binding)
* full build passes. built from source using `mvn clean package verify
-Perrorprone`
* verified tests pass
* verified the sha512 in the vote thread matches the source-release artifact
* ran the example and both benchmarks using the instructions in the readme
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at
+1
Verified checksums and signatures
Compared source zip to branch
Updated #3746 to use the version 1.0.0-beta of Accumulo Access, configured
maven to point to the staging repository, ran all accumulo unit test (which
tests Accumulo classes that use accumulo-access), and ran ComprehensiveIT
(while
Christopher,
Regarding your issues, notes, etc.:
1. IIRC versions 1 and 2 were not built correctly and I did not restart
the numbering for the first good build.
2. The build script gave me the option of where to put the branches and I
wasn't sure what the correct answer was. They are in my
