ripple-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Horn, Julian C" <>
Subject RE: [Vote] Ripple release 0.9.28 (Attempt 2)
Date Thu, 16 Apr 2015 14:36:08 GMT
You're right, Tim.  Apparently I have run into a bug in WinZip's processing of tar files.

The missing files are in the tar archive, but WinZip get their relative path wrong.  It puts
them in the root, just outside of the "ripple-emulator-0.9.28-incubating" folder.

I extract the .tar file from the .tgz file and unpacked it using tar, and as you said, it
comes out like looking exactly like the git repo.  All the files are in the right place. 
Bug affects at least WinZip 18.0 and 18.5.


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Barham [] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Vote] Ripple release 0.9.28 (Attempt 2)

Hmmm, I'm not seeing this. When I open up the linked tgz file, all those files are present.
And when I diff its contents against my local repo (sync'd to that tag), all files show as
From: Horn, Julian C <>
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 12:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Vote] Ripple release 0.9.28 (Attempt 2)

I downloaded the ripple-emulator-0.9.28-incubating.tgz file from the link in your mail,
I positioned my clone of the incubator-ripple git repo to the 0.9.28 tag, which is commit
I figure these should be equal, but they don't match.  Please explain this.

Specifically, the following files were absent in the release candidate (ripple-emulator-0.9.28-incubating.tgz)
and present the 0.9.28 tag in incubator-ripple:

assets/client/themes/dark/images: ui-bg_highlight-hard_30_5871a3_1x100.png
assets/client/themes/dark/images: ui-bg_highlight-soft_0_333333_1x100.png
assets/client/themes/dark/images: ui-bg_highlight-soft_10_333333_1x100.png
assets/client/themes/dark/images: ui-bg_highlight-soft_20_333333_1x100.png
assets/client/themes/dark/images: ui-bg_highlight-soft_50_1e1e1e_1x100.png
assets/client/themes/light/images: ui-bg_highlight-soft_75_cccccc_1x100.png
lib/client/platform/webworks.bb10/1.0.0: webkitResolveLocalFileSystemURL.js
lib/client/platform/webworks.handset/2.0.0/client: AddressBookArguments.js
lib/client/platform/webworks.handset/2.0.0/client: BrowserArguments.js
lib/client/platform/webworks.handset/2.0.0/client: CalendarArguments.js
lib/client/platform/webworks.handset/2.0.0/client: CameraArguments.js
lib/client/platform/webworks.handset/2.0.0/client: FilterExpression.js
lib/client/platform/webworks.handset/2.0.0/client: MessageArguments.js
lib/client/platform/webworks.handset/2.0.0/client: PhoneArguments.js
lib/client/platform/webworks.handset/2.0.0/client: SearchArguments.js
lib/client/platform/webworks.handset/2.0.0/client/identity: Service.js
lib/client/platform/webworks.handset/2.0.0/client/identity: Transport.js
lib/client/platform/webworks.handset/2.0.0/client/identity: phone.js
lib/client/platform/webworks.handset/2.0.0/server/identity: phone.js
lib/client/platform/webworks.tablet/2.0.0/client: BrowserArguments.js
lib/client/platform/webworks.tablet/2.0.0/client: CameraArguments.js


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Barham []
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 2:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Vote] Ripple release 0.9.28 (Attempt 2)

Hey all - anyone willing to take a look at this? Would be really good to get this release



From: Tim Barham <>
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 11:07 PM
Subject: [Vote] Ripple release 0.9.28 (Attempt 2)

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 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

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

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).



View raw message