You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ripple.apache.org by Brent Lintner <br...@gmail.com> on 2015/03/03 20:32:53 UTC
Re: [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.26
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 <Ti...@microsoft.com> 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:Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 7:19 AM
> To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
> 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:panarasi@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:23 PM
> To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
> 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.
>
RE: [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.26
Posted by "Parashuram N (MS OPEN TECH)" <pa...@microsoft.com>.
Closing this VOTE thread as per the conversation below. I will restart a VOTE thread once the package with version bump is ready.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Barham [mailto:Tim.Barham@microsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 4:12 AM
To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.26
Brent - yeah, let's go with this. You're change looks good other than a minor suggestion I made in the comments, and it would be good to clean this up before our release.
If you take care of getting that in, updating the release notes and bumping the version, I'll build a new package tomorrow and I guess reboot the vote thread.
Glad you caught this!
Thanks,
Tim
________________________________________
From: Brent Lintner [brent.lintner@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 5:32 AM
To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.26
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 <Ti...@microsoft.com> 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:Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 7:19 AM
> To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
> 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:panarasi@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:23 PM
> To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
> 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.
>
Re: [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.26
Posted by Brent Lintner <br...@gmail.com>.
Hey Tim,
So I have bumped the version and pushed the latest to git (as you can see).
Should be good to go. :-)
On Wed, 4 Mar 2015 at 10:38 Brent Lintner <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Tim,
>
> Alright, sounds good. I will get that in, bump the version and release
> notes.
>
> For disclosure: I mentioned in the PR that, your call ultimately (I'd
> say), since you have to rebuild and reboot the vote thread. :-( :-)
>
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2015 at 07:13 Tim Barham <Ti...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> Brent - yeah, let's go with this. You're change looks good other than a
>> minor suggestion I made in the comments, and it would be good to clean this
>> up before our release.
>>
>> If you take care of getting that in, updating the release notes and
>> bumping the version, I'll build a new package tomorrow and I guess reboot
>> the vote thread.
>>
>> Glad you caught this!
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Brent Lintner [brent.lintner@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 5:32 AM
>> To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.26
>>
>> 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 <Ti...@microsoft.com> 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:Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com]
>> > Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 7:19 AM
>> > To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
>> > 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:panarasi@microsoft.com]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:23 PM
>> > To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
>> > 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.
>> >
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.26
Posted by Brent Lintner <br...@gmail.com>.
Hey Tim,
Alright, sounds good. I will get that in, bump the version and release
notes.
For disclosure: I mentioned in the PR that, your call ultimately (I'd say),
since you have to rebuild and reboot the vote thread. :-( :-)
On Wed, 4 Mar 2015 at 07:13 Tim Barham <Ti...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Brent - yeah, let's go with this. You're change looks good other than a
> minor suggestion I made in the comments, and it would be good to clean this
> up before our release.
>
> If you take care of getting that in, updating the release notes and
> bumping the version, I'll build a new package tomorrow and I guess reboot
> the vote thread.
>
> Glad you caught this!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tim
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Brent Lintner [brent.lintner@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 5:32 AM
> To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.26
>
> 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 <Ti...@microsoft.com> 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:Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 7:19 AM
> > To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
> > 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:panarasi@microsoft.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:23 PM
> > To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
> > 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.
> >
RE: [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.26
Posted by Tim Barham <Ti...@microsoft.com>.
Brent - yeah, let's go with this. You're change looks good other than a minor suggestion I made in the comments, and it would be good to clean this up before our release.
If you take care of getting that in, updating the release notes and bumping the version, I'll build a new package tomorrow and I guess reboot the vote thread.
Glad you caught this!
Thanks,
Tim
________________________________________
From: Brent Lintner [brent.lintner@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 5:32 AM
To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Ripple release 0.9.26
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 <Ti...@microsoft.com> 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:Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 7:19 AM
> To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
> 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:panarasi@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:23 PM
> To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
> 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.
>