I downloaded the ripple-emulator-0.9.28-incubating.tgz file from the link in
your mail, http://1drv.ms/1BAKsBJ.
I positioned my clone of the incubator-ripple git repo to the 0.9.28 tag, which
is commit 1d95fed5427fc9684318592be49741c0e7d777cb.
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
Julian
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Barham [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 2:22 AM
To: [email protected]
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 out.
Thanks,
Tim
________________________________________
From: Tim Barham <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 11:07 PM
To: [email protected]
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
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
