ripple-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brent Lintner <brent.lint...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Vote] Ripple release 0.9.28 (Attempt 2)
Date Mon, 20 Apr 2015 14:37:21 GMT
>> As a general rule lint problems should not block a release. In fact bugs
should not block a release (unless critical). Document them as "known
issues" in the release so folks know they will be fixed in the future.

That makes sense. The main issue was just that one can not easily and
straightforwardly build a minified version of the code- only a basic build
works (since lint fails a deploy).

On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 at 15:02 Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <
Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:

> As a general rule lint problems should not block a release. In fact bugs
> should not block a release (unless critical). Document them as "known
> issues" in the release so folks know they will be fixed in the future.
>
> It's very hard to get a release out that satisfies all non-critical items
> like docs and lint results.
>
> Generally a "-1" means "I don't support this because... and I will take
> action to fix that problem". So, for example, when I cast my -1 made the
> necessary changes in version control at the same time. Since it is a
> critical issue (and I'm a mentor not a committer) I decided not to roll a
> new release.
>
> For non-critical issues I care about I would vote -1, provide the changes
> *and* a new release artifact for the community to consider. Otherwise the
> community would be free to reject the -1 (releases cannot be vetoed, they
> require at least 3 +1's and more +1 then -1).
>
> Ross
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brent Lintner [mailto:brent.lintner@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 11:53 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 extension is no longer maintained.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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message