Hey Tim, Sorry for post-vote comment..
One thing I noticed is that the CLI help logs include the ASF license comments (didn't even consider that when I was reviewing). FWIW, I'm put up a PR that does a hacky fix for it. https://github.com/apache/incubator-ripple/pull/40 Might be good to include this in a (newly bumped) release, if it is not too much work? All the best, On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 at 20:38 Tim Barham <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Ross, I believe I have correctly verified everything listed below > when creating the package. So the next step is for others to download the > package themselves and confirm it is compliant, then vote accordingly? > > The package can be found here: http://bit.ly/1FZ8meZ (this is shared from > my OneDrive account - please let me know if there is a more "official" > place I should be putting this for people to access). > > Thanks, > > Tim > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 7:19 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.26 > > Voting on releases is one of the few things that the ASF requires formal > policies to be followed. The reason boils down to ensuring that the > foundation can protect developers in the event of a legal dispute resulting > from a release. It is critical that we follow the processes as defined, > which include actually verifying the release is valid before voting. > > A vote thread needs to have the essential information within it to enable > to community to evaluate and vote. Nobody should vote unless they have > performed the necessary checks on the artifacts. Where are the artifacts we > are voting on? They need to be referenced in this email thread to provide a > traceable reference. > > Note that the minimum level of checks before voting +1 are: > > 1.1 Checksums and PGP signatures are valid. > > See the Release Signing dev documentation. > > 2.1 Build is successful including automated tests. > > The expanded source archive is expected to build and pass tests. > > 3.1 DISCLAIMER is correct, filenames include "incubating". > > See the Podling Branding Guide. > > 3.2 Top-level LICENSE and NOTICE are correct for each distribution. > > See the Licensing How-To, plus various pages under Legal Affairs. > > 3.3 All source files have license headers where appropriate. > > See the ASF Source Header and Copyright Notice Policy. > > 3.4 The provenance of all source files is clear (ASF or software grants). > > See the IP clearance section of the Mentor's guide, as well as the > Releases section of the Incubator's policy page. > > 3.5 Dependencies licenses are ok as per http://apache.org/legal/ > > See ASF Legal Previously Asked Questions. > > 3.6 Release consists of source code only, no binaries. > > Each Apache release must contain a source package. This package may not > contain compiled components (such as "jar" files) because compiled > components are not open source, even if they were built from open source. > > See http://incubator.apache.org/guides/release.html for more information, > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Parashuram N (MS OPEN TECH) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:23 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.26 > > Hi, > > I wanted to see if we can start a VOTE thread for making the first > official ripple release. All the required LICENSE, NOTICE and headers have > been updated. Please +1 if you think we should make a release. > > P.S: I am not a member of the Ripple PMC, so not sure if I can start the > vote. Once the vote passes, we would also need someone in the PMC to upload > package. >
