ripple-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Barham <>
Subject Re: [Vote] Ripple release 0.9.28 (Attempt 2)
Date Mon, 20 Apr 2015 14:06:05 GMT
After looking through all the licenses I can find, and the contents of the LICENSE file, I
noticed that that xmlhttprequest license you removed actually came from thirdparty/OpenLayers.js
(that is, it includes a compressed version of XMLHttpRequest.js). So it seems that code is
in fact still included. However... The particular version of XMLHttpRequest.js that is included
is from 2007, and it looks like at that point it was in fact released under the Apache 2.0
license (see So I expect that
means we should probably restore that entry in the LICENSE file.

Also, jWorkflow, accounting.js and moment.js (which are all referenced in the LICENSE file)
are only included under node_modules (that is, they're not in the repository and not in the
package). Since we don't include the code, do we need to include the license in the LICENSE


From: Tim Barham <>
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Vote] Ripple release 0.9.28 (Attempt 2)

Hey Ross - when you say "it needs another thorough review", are you referring to the LICENSE
file? I'll take another look through it now.

Thanks for fixing the issue you found!


From: Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <>
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2015 3:30 AM
Subject: RE: [Vote] Ripple release 0.9.28 (Attempt 2)

Changing my vote to -1:

I found a reference to an LGPL dependency incorrectly marked as Apache licensed (xmlhttprequest).
Upon examining the code itself it looks like the LGPL code has already been replaced and is
not actually a dependency. However, this incorrect reference in the LICENSE file must be removed
(I've done that). Furthermore, since someone played loose with the file in the past it needs
another thorough review.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) []
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 11:50 PM
Subject: RE: [Vote] Ripple release 0.9.28 (Attempt 2)


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Barham []
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Vote] Ripple release 0.9.28 (Attempt 2)

Thanks Tim - I noticed the PR, and will take a look later. While those doc fixes are important,
I'd prefer not to hold up this release for that (it has already been a long drawn out process).
Once we get this first official release out, it will be a lot easier to do subsequent releases,
so we can pick up the doc fixes then.

Regarding the Chrome store - no, I don't believe that will get updated. As far as I understand
things, Ripple is no longer a Chrome extension, just a command line tool, installable from
npm ('npm install -g ripple-emulator').


From: Tim Windsor <>
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 6:38 AM
Subject: RE: [Vote] Ripple release 0.9.28 (Attempt 2)

I just sent in a pull request for some documentation and download links. I updated them to
point to the Apache Incubator sites. Hopefully this can be included in the release, since
the old links are not valid.

Also, I would like to confirm that the release will update the version on the Chrome store
as well?


Tim Windsor
Open Source Technical Lead - Devices

-----Original Message-----
From: Horn, Julian C []
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 10:36 AM
Subject: RE: [Vote] Ripple release 0.9.28 (Attempt 2)

You're right, Tim.  Apparently I have run into a bug in WinZip's processing of tar files.

The missing files are in the tar archive, but WinZip get their relative path wrong.  It puts
them in the root, just outside of the "ripple-emulator-0.9.28-incubating" folder.

I extract the .tar file from the .tgz file and unpacked it using tar, and as you said, it
comes out like looking exactly like the git repo.  All the files are in the right place. 
Bug affects at least WinZip 18.0 and 18.5.


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Barham []
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Vote] Ripple release 0.9.28 (Attempt 2)

Hmmm, I'm not seeing this. When I open up the linked tgz file, all those files are present.
And when I diff its contents against my local repo (sync'd to that tag), all files show as
From: Horn, Julian C <>
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 12:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Vote] Ripple release 0.9.28 (Attempt 2)

I downloaded the ripple-emulator-0.9.28-incubating.tgz file from the link in your mail,
I positioned my clone of the incubator-ripple git repo to the 0.9.28 tag, which is commit
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


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Barham []
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 2:22 AM
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



From: Tim Barham <>
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 11:07 PM
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 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

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

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).



View raw message