ripple-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Barham <Tim.Bar...@microsoft.com>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] Ripple release 0.9.28 (Attempt 2) RE: [Vote] Ripple release 0.9.28 (Attempt 2)
Date Tue, 21 Apr 2015 05:38:39 GMT
Hey Brent - can you expand on the lint failures you are seeing?

In 0.9.28 there were lint failures in ripple.css, which I've since fixed. But do they interfere
with building? (I built a compressed version of 0.9.28 for the first package I put out, and
the version you put up on npm would be the same, right?).

Since 0.9.28, I noticed I introduced some lint failures in build/archive.js. They're not part
of 0.9.28 so don't impact this release, but I'll make sure to fix them.

> Thanks again, Tim! Truly awesome getting all of this in order.

You're welcome :), and I can't wait to finally get everything sorted and get this baby out
the door!

Thanks,

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Brent Lintner [mailto:brent.lintner@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 4:53 AM
To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Vote] Ripple release 0.9.28 (Attempt 2)

(pending Ross's comments in the Discuss thread), I've been testing the building and running
of the source:

Only thing before I could +1, is that, it appears there is some js/css lint that fails the
`jake deploy` step.

Sorry for delays- been super busy. :-(

Thanks again, Tim! Truly awesome getting all of this in order.

Also- To add onto what Tim said to Tim (Windsor), indeed, the Chrome store extension is no
longer maintained. We (a few of the original committers) asked for credentials a long time
ago from BlackBerry (WebWorks team), but have not been able to get them and update/remove
it. PS: Thanks for the docs updates, Tim!

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 at 05:29 Christian Grobmeier <grobmeier@apache.org>
wrote:

> Hi
>
> I am very sorry for being late to the party!
>
> Tim, could you let me know where I can find the signature keys?
>
> I couldn't find BD12A00B3D7CC134. Usually we have it in some KEYS file 
> somewhere and should document for users how they can verify the release.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015, at 15:07, Tim Barham wrote:
> > Please review and vote on the release of Ripple 0.9.28.
> >
> >
> > Changes since the previous vote thread: this is a new package that 
> > contains all source material (everything in the git repo), and no 
> > build output.
> >
> >
> > The package you are voting on is available for review at 
> > http://1drv.ms/1BAKsBJ. It was published from its corresponding git tag:
> >      incubator-ripple: 0.9.28 (1d95fed542)
> >
> >
> > Since this will be an official Apache release of Ripple (our 
> > first!), we must be particularly careful that it complies with all 
> > Apache guidelines for an incubator release. As such, before voting 
> > +1, please refer to and verify compliance with the checklist at 
> > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check-list.
> >
> >
> > If anyone has concerns that we don't meet any of these requirements, 
> > please don't hesitate to raise them here so we can discuss and make 
> > changes if necessary.
> >
> >
> > If you do give a +1 vote, please include what steps you took in 
> > order to be confident in the release.
> >
> >
> > Please also note from Ross's recent email:
> >
> >
> > > What we need is three +1 "binding" votes, in reality that means 
> > > three
> IPMC
> > > members. Once a project graduates it means three project 
> > > management
> committee
> > > members. However, as a mentor (therefore having a binding vote) I 
> > > look
> to the
> > > project participants to indicate their preference and (assuming no
> blocking
> > > issues on an IP check) I'll always vote in support of the 
> > > communities
> non-
> > > binding votes.
> >
> >
> > So please, even though your vote may not be binding, take some time 
> > to review the release and vote!
> >
> >
> > Upon a successful vote, we will arrange for the archive to be 
> > uploaded to dist/incubator/ and publish it to NPM.
> >
> >
> > I vote +1:
> > * I verified build works and tests all pass
> > * I ran Apache RAT against the repo and confirmed we were ok with 
> > all files reported by RAT (which I'll be adding to RAT exceptions 
> > when I add tools to run RAT automatically).
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >
>
Mime
View raw message