Thank you Tim and Brent. I took the liberty to start a VOTE thread so that we can now have an official release. I would request the committers/PMC members to please look at the release and vote for it.
On 2/17/15, 3:08 PM, "Tim Barham" <[email protected]> wrote: >Thanks Brent. All looks good to me. New package created and uploaded to >OneDrive here: http://bit.ly/1FZ8meZ. > >Thanks, > >Tim > >-----Original Message----- >From: Brent Lintner [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 8:03 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Ripple Release > >Hey Tim! > >Sorry for any delay. > >I've merged the commit in >https://github.com/apache/incubator-ripple/pull/39 >and bumped the version and updated the changelog as you mentioned. > >Let me know if I missed anything. > >Should be good to go! > >Thanks for everything, btw! > >On Mon Feb 16 2015 at 02:29:24 Tim Barham <[email protected]> >wrote: > >> Ok, I've done a bit of testing on the package and verified its >> contents compared to the previous release (it only contained expected >>differences). >> I noticed when I was doing that that the js, html and css files in the >> pkg folder weren't minified, so figured that out :). Verified all tests >>pass. >> >> For now, I'm sharing it from my OneDrive, here: >> >>https://onedrive-df.live.com/redir?resid=148BA2618500F5DB!132704&authkey= >>! >> AGMX3sY8azG45Ic&ithint=folder%2cmd5 >> >> I believe the next step is for people to take a look at the package, >> and test it out. >> >> One issue: I realized that the package was missing the DISCLAIMER and >> NOTICE files. Sorry, I missed that previously The NOTICE file was in >> the repository, but not included in the package because it wasn't >> listed in package.json, and the DISCLAIMER file wasn't in the >> repository. I've added the DISCLAIMER file and modified package.json >> to include it and NOTICE, but I've not created a PR for these changes >> yet, since my packaging process packages off the tag (plus local >> changes if there are any). So I've created this package using the >> 0.9.25 tag plus my local changes, so it contains those files, but >> that's not ideal (the package should really reflect what is actually >> the state of things when the version tag was applied). How to handle >> this? Perhaps the easiest would be if you could remove the tag, Brent, >> then I'll add my changes, then apply the tag again. What do you think? >> >> Thanks! >> >> Tim >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Tim Barham [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 2:09 AM >> To: <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Ripple Release >> >> Thanks Brent! >> >> I've built a package and will do some testing, then send it out by >> Monday if all seems good. >> >> Tim >> >> > On Feb 13, 2015, at 6:54 AM, Brent Lintner <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > Hey Tim, >> > >> > No worries at all! I am definitely not one to talk for replies. ;-) >> > >> > I have merged your PR and tagged 0.9.25. Sorry for any delay. I was >> > not anywhere near my computer yesterday afternoon onward. :-( >> > >> >> On Tue Feb 10 2015 at 21:41:58 Tim Barham >> >> <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Thanks for the response, Brent, and sorry for my tardiness getting >> >> back >> to >> >> you - I've been travelling (return from time in Redmond back to my >> >> home >> in >> >> Brisbane, Australia), followed by jetlag followed by getting sick :). >> But >> >> anyways... I'm back on this now. >> >> >> >> I was looking into getting a couple of additional fixes into this >> release, >> >> but in the end decided the priority was to get the release out. I >> >> am >> about >> >> to send out a PR with the following changes: >> >> >> >> 1. Updated version in package.json to 0.9.25 2. Listed changes in >> >> CHANGELOG.md. >> >> >> >> If you accept this PR, would you then be able to apply the "0.9.25" >>tag? >> >> Then I'll be able to build an up-to-date package. >> >> >> >> Thanks! >> >> >> >> Tim >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Brent Lintner [mailto:[email protected]] >> >> Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 11:23 AM >> >> To: [email protected] >> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Ripple Release >> >> >> >> Hey Tim, >> >> >> >> Sorry for my haphazard participation and delayed reply. Thanks for >> >> the >> PR >> >> for the header file updates! Your help is greatly appreciated and >> welcome. >> >> :-D >> >> >> >>>> I'm working on Windows (surprise :) ), and hit some issues >> >>>> building >> >> Ripple >> >> >> >> I'm personally sorry that Windows support is not on par. Glad you >> >> can >> get >> >> it working with a Cygwin terminal. It has been something that some >> >> have contributed to, but, alas, we were naughty (back in the day) >> >> and did not give Windows as much love as it needed/deserved. :-( >> >> >> >> To somewhat answer your questions: >> >> >> >>>> 1. Do we need to update the version number before doing a >> >>>> release? If >> >> so, to what (currently 0.9.24)? >> >> >> >> I'd say, yes. Even though small (code) changes have happened, there >> >> has not been a tagged unofficial "release" that encompasses those >> contributions. >> >> (IMO: as long as it is http://semver.org based, all good!). >> >> >> >>>> 2. I've signed the package, but my PGP certificate has not been >> >> authenticated by anyone in the Apache "web of trust", so I may need >> >> to sort that out. >> >> >> >> It seems Ross already helping with the PGP issue (sorry for my lack >> >> of >> >> insight..) >> >> >> >>>> 3. Is there somewhere I can put the package for people to take a >> >>>> look >> >> at? >> >> >> >> Not too sure myself, there. I admit I am a bit of rogue when it >> >> comes to more ASF specific things. ;-) My suggestion of Dropbox or >> >> something is probably not cool, heh. Hopefully someone else can >> >> give an idea of >> where to >> >> host the package. I want to say there is a way to host files via >> >> our personal apache accounts... >> >> >> >> All the best, >> >> >> >> On Fri Jan 30 2015 at 18:43:11 Tim Barham >> >> <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Thanks Ross! >> >>> >> >>> Tim >> >>> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) >> >>> [mailto:[email protected]] >> >>> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 9:28 PM >> >>> To: [email protected] >> >>> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Ripple Release >> >>> >> >>> Hi Tim, >> >>> >> >>> Thanks for stepping up. As you probably know Ripple is not a very >> >>> active project right now. If there is no take up from the >> >>> community then the projects mentors will step up to help you get >>your work done. >> >>> For now - keep it up, and thnks. >> >>> >> >>> Ross >> >>> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: Tim Barham [mailto:[email protected]] >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 4:11 PM >> >>> To: [email protected] >> >>> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Ripple Release >> >>> >> >>> Hi all, >> >>> >> >>> First I would like to introduce myself - my name is Tim Barham, >> >>> and I'm on the Visual Studio team at Microsoft. I've been doing >> >>> some work on Cordova, and am currently working to help get a >> >>> release of Ripple out. However, I'm completely new to the process, >> >>> so would certainly >> >> appreciate any tips! >> >>> >> >>> First steps for me have been to get a package put together. I'm >> >>> working on Windows (surprise :) ), and hit some issues building >> >>> Ripple (similar to that recently described by Venkata Kiran). >> >>> However, I was able to get the build working by running it in a >>Cygwin terminal. >> >>> >> >>> I've created a package by leveraging some of the tools that have >> >>> been created for Cordova (in cordova-coho). But I have a few >>questions: >> >>> >> >>> 1. Do we need to update the version number before doing a release? >> >>> If so, to what (currently 0.9.24)? >> >>> 2. I've signed the package, but my PGP certificate has not been >> >>> authenticated by anyone in the Apache "web of trust", so I may >> >>> need to sort that out. >> >>> 3. Is there somewhere I can put the package for people to take a >> >>> look >> at? >> >>> 4. I found some source files that look to me like that should have >> >>> the Apache 2.0 headers but don't. Should I just make the changes >> >>> and open a pull request? Here are the files: >> >>> >> >>> lib/server/emulate/cordovaProject.js >> >>> lib/server/emulate/static.js >> >>> lib/client/ui/plugins/about-dialog/dialog.html >> >>> lib/client/ui/plugins/confirm-dialog/dialog.html >> >>> lib/client/ui/plugins/exec-dialog/dialog.html >> >>> lib/client/ui/plugins/settings-dialog/dialog.html >> >>> >> >>> I'm working my way through the relevant Apache documents, and I'm >> >>> sure I'll have more questions, but in the meantime any help would >> >>> be greatly appreciated. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks! >> >>> >> >>> Tim >> >>> >> >>> On 1/21/15, 1:15 PM, "Parashuram N (MS OPEN TECH)" >> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Thanks Christian. >> >>>> >> >>>> Kiran, I agree with you about the plan. We should definitely >> >>>> discuss the future plans. There have also been some discussions >> >>>> on the Cordova mailing list about how Ripple could be leverage >> >>>> better, and some prototypes have been built. We should look at >> >>>> working on the plan separately from this DISCUSS thread. >> >>>> >> >>>> Community, does anyone have opinions on how best to work on a >> >>>> roadmap, and do you guys think a roadmap is required? >> >>>> >> >>>> On 1/21/15, 12:18 PM, "Christian Grobmeier" <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> +1 from me also. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I am willing to help in the first review of the release and dig >> >>>>> with you folks through the release stuff. My knowledge is not >> >>>>> perfect, but I am absolutely sure the rest of the IPMC will have >> >>>>> something to >> >> say. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Also I would like to highlight what Ross said: the first release >> >>>>> is painful, but the second is already pretty smoothly. To keep >> >>>>> it like that it perfectly makes sense to document the release >> >>>>> process as good as we can. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Here is some first document to read: >> >>>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html >> >>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Basically these are the most important requirements: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> - all code is covered by CLA/ICLA (it is the case now) >> >>>>> - all code reflects the AL 2.0 headers >> >>>>> - all dependencies are named with their respective licenses >> >>>>> (NOTICE >> >>>>> file) >> >>>>> - we have LICENSE file >> >>>>> - we have signed the release, we provide an md5 (to my >> >>>>> knowledge, some variations might apply) >> >>>>> - we provide a KEYS file >> >>>>> - we release source files first, then optionally binary files >> >>>>> - we release on our own hardware. Everything else (like NPM) is >> >>>>> optional >> >>>>> - we need to vote on the release with +1 or -1. -1 is usually >> >>>>> not blocking, but we should take it serious (only code -1 is >> >>>>> blocking) >> >>>>> - we must not forgot to notify the IPMC, see IPMC rules >> >>>>> >> >>>>> It's all I can think of right now. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Please keep the ball rolling, thanks a lot Parashuram! >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Regards, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Christian >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015, at 17:08, Venkata Kiran wrote: >> >>>>>> +1 >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Also I think we should document the roadmap on what are the >> >>>>>> enhancements/bug fixes and approximate time frame on when they >> >>>>>> can be expected. I know this will not be 100% but it can be >> >>>>>> updated as the plan changes.I think this will help the >> >>>>>> existing contributors to focus on few things instead of >> >>>>>> scattering over large set of things. Also this may encourage >> >>>>>> the new Contributors to easily step in on the enhancements they >>wish to have. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Thanks & Regards, >> >>>>>> --Kiran >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >> >>>>>> From: Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) >> >>>>>> [mailto:[email protected]] >> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 3:56 AM >> >>>>>> To: [email protected] >> >>>>>> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Ripple Release >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> +1 >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Thank you Parashu. As I said before I am here to help as a >>mentor. >> >>>>>> Given >> >>>>>> the >> >>>>>> status of this podling I believe we will need to go to the IPMC >> >>>>>> to get the necessary binding votes. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Since this is the first formal release from this project it is >> >>>>>> likely that we will need a very close eye on the details of the >> >>>>>> legal checklist (certainly the IPMC will be thorough in this >> >>>>>> regard). After this first release subsequent releases should be >> >>>>>> much easier. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Ross >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. >> >>>>>> A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >> >>>>>> From: Parashuram N (MS OPEN TECH) >> >>>>>> [mailto:[email protected]] >> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 2:18 PM >> >>>>>> To: [email protected] >> >>>>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Ripple Release >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Hi, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I wanted to start a discuss thread on making an official >> >>>>>> release for Ripple. >> >>>>>> We would be picking up the latest from the master branch, tag >> >>>>>> it as a release candidate (version 0.9.24) and follow the >> >>>>>> process as in >> >>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check >> >>>>>> -li >> >>>>>> st >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Will this be something that the community would be interested in >>? >> >>>>>> Please >> >>>>>> +1, and raise any questions in this [DISCUSS] thread. >> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
