ripple-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] Ripple release 0.9.29
Date Tue, 12 May 2015 17:01:33 GMT
Once again, thank you for your work on this. The first release is always the hardest because
nobody has done the helpful stuff like adding a jake task for RAT - great stuff!

I've not reviewed the package at this point, but based on the fact I did a thorough review
of the last package I'm all for you putting this up for a vote.


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Barham [] 
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 9:45 PM
Subject: [DISCUSS] Ripple release 0.9.29

Based on feedback from our last attempt at a release, I believe the only change we *need*
to make for a release is to reinstate the XMLHttpRequest.js license in LICENSE, updating it
to point to the correct version (that was released under the Apache 2.0). However, we've also
had some useful fixes over the weeks since 0.9.28, so it will be nice to include them. In
addition to those changes, I've done the following today:

1. Merged Julian's PR that updates our bower and jsdom so Ripple successfully installs and
builds with Node 0.11.0 and higher.
2. Added a new jake task - 'jake rat' - that runs Apache RAT to verify license headers in
the project (verifies all files that should have license headers do, that they recognized,
and of a type acceptable in an Apache project). This will make it easier for team members
to verify a release is clean in this regard (note that since it runs against your local repo,
you need to sync your repo to the release tag the run). Running 'jake rat' should be completely
clean at this point, as I've configured it to exclude files with license headers it doesn't
recognize, but that we have agreed are fine.
3. Updated package.json and doc/ for version 0.9.29 and added a 0.9.29 tag.

I've created an archive package if anyone wants to check it out, but haven't done any verification
on it yet. It can be found here:

Anyone have any issues with moving forward with a vote thread for this release?



View raw message