You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Om <bi...@gmail.com> on 2013/01/01 07:23:29 UTC
[DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
This is version 2.0 of Apache Flex SDK Installer. This version lets users
download the Apache Flex SDK 4.9 and its required dependencies.
https://people.apache.org/~bigosmallm/installapacheflex_2.0_RC1/
Significant improvements over previous version:
1. UI of the components selection and license screen has been fixed to use
just checkboxes for selection
2. All the various locales have been enabled.
3. By default, Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 downloads Adobe Flash Player
11.1 and Adobe AIR SDK 3.4. If you want to change it to any other
supported combination, you save a copy of the config file found at:
http://incubator.apache.org/flex/sdk-installer-config-2.0.xml, modify the
download urls to point to the required versions. Then run the app from
command line mode with the optional command line parameter: -config=<path
to config file>
Please take it for a spin and let us know your feedback. We would like to
put up a vote asap and release this right away!
Thanks,
Om
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
The OSX version of the installer can be found here:
https://people.apache.org/~jmclean/Apache%20Flex%20Installer%20RC1/
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Om <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 2, 2013 7:04 AM, "Carol Frampton" <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> Just gave this a try. Here are my comments regarding the installation and
> use:
>
> 1. When I tried to install it I got that "there is something wrong" AIR
> error which is really unhelpful but I knew it meant I had to uninstall the
> old installer first. Why can't the old installer and the new installer
> co-exist since they are each installing a different version of Flex?
>
Did you try to install the RC or did you install from what you built
yourself?
The latter should give the problem you mentioned since you would be signing
with a temp generated certificate.
> 2. As Justin said, the DISCLAIMER needs to be removed.
>
> 3. Depending on the locale, the text in some of the buttons is truncated
> which looks bad. For example, try French.
>
> 4. When I switch the language in the middle of checking all the license
> agreements, whatever I've already checked is cleared.
>
> Carol
>
> On 1/1/13 1 :23AM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >This is version 2.0 of Apache Flex SDK Installer. This version lets
users
> >download the Apache Flex SDK 4.9 and its required dependencies.
> >
> >https://people.apache.org/~bigosmallm/installapacheflex_2.0_RC1/
> >
> >Significant improvements over previous version:
> >
> >1. UI of the components selection and license screen has been fixed to
> >use
> >just checkboxes for selection
> >2. All the various locales have been enabled.
> >3. By default, Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 downloads Adobe Flash
Player
> >11.1 and Adobe AIR SDK 3.4. If you want to change it to any other
> >supported combination, you save a copy of the config file found at:
> >http://incubator.apache.org/flex/sdk-installer-config-2.0.xml, modify the
> >download urls to point to the required versions. Then run the app from
> >command line mode with the optional command line parameter: -config=<path
> >to config file>
> >
> >Please take it for a spin and let us know your feedback. We would like
to
> >put up a vote asap and release this right away!
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Om
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 1/3/13 2:27 PM, "Nick Tsitlakidis" <ni...@perfectedz.com> wrote:
> Hello Alex,
> I've just checked out the source for the installer. I'll spend some time
> trying to build and check if all is right.
> After a quick look in the class responsible for the locale settings, I see
> some more changes that can happen so as soon as I figure out how the
> process works I'll submit a patch with the new changes.
>
> Regarding the JIRA issue, what do you want me to include in there?
The list of strings you wanted us to change. Someday we may want to go back
and find out what you've contributed.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Nick Tsitlakidis <ni...@perfectedz.com>.
Hello Alex,
I've just checked out the source for the installer. I'll spend some time
trying to build and check if all is right.
After a quick look in the class responsible for the locale settings, I see
some more changes that can happen so as soon as I figure out how the
process works I'll submit a patch with the new changes.
Regarding the JIRA issue, what do you want me to include in there?
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:02 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi Nick, I checked in your suggested changes. If you have time, please
> build it and test it yourself. At minimum, check it when you see RC2
> announced.
>
> Also, please open a JIRA issue and copy your email into it. I tend to use
> JIRA to track who we've accepted contributions from.
>
> Om, I've checked the rat report and ran the installer in english last
> night.
> Everything seems to be ok, so I'm ready for RC2.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> On 1/3/13 8:19 AM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On 1/3/13 5:57 AM, "Nick Tsitlakidis" <ni...@perfectedz.com> wrote:
> >
> >> More than happy to do it but I would like to have some guidance for
> this.
> >> I'm a total noob with patches since it's the first time I'm actively
> >> contributing something. I'm a member of the list since last year but
> never
> >> had the time to work on something until now.
> >>
> >> Are there any guidelines or a page I can check to learn how to do this?
> > There is some information on the Apache Flex web site. You have to check
> out
> > the source, figure out how to build the installer, modify the files and
> > generate the patch from the modified files. The way you generate the
> patch
> > depends on what kind of SVN client you are using.
> >
> > But for now, I will try to see if I can just copy/paste your changes.
>
> --
> Alex Harui
> Flex SDK Team
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>
>
--
Nick Tsitlakidis,
CEO and Software Architect at Perfect Edge LTD.
www.perfectedz.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Hi Nick, I checked in your suggested changes. If you have time, please
build it and test it yourself. At minimum, check it when you see RC2
announced.
Also, please open a JIRA issue and copy your email into it. I tend to use
JIRA to track who we've accepted contributions from.
Om, I've checked the rat report and ran the installer in english last night.
Everything seems to be ok, so I'm ready for RC2.
Thanks,
-Alex
On 1/3/13 8:19 AM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/3/13 5:57 AM, "Nick Tsitlakidis" <ni...@perfectedz.com> wrote:
>
>> More than happy to do it but I would like to have some guidance for this.
>> I'm a total noob with patches since it's the first time I'm actively
>> contributing something. I'm a member of the list since last year but never
>> had the time to work on something until now.
>>
>> Are there any guidelines or a page I can check to learn how to do this?
> There is some information on the Apache Flex web site. You have to check out
> the source, figure out how to build the installer, modify the files and
> generate the patch from the modified files. The way you generate the patch
> depends on what kind of SVN client you are using.
>
> But for now, I will try to see if I can just copy/paste your changes.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 1/3/13 5:57 AM, "Nick Tsitlakidis" <ni...@perfectedz.com> wrote:
> More than happy to do it but I would like to have some guidance for this.
> I'm a total noob with patches since it's the first time I'm actively
> contributing something. I'm a member of the list since last year but never
> had the time to work on something until now.
>
> Are there any guidelines or a page I can check to learn how to do this?
There is some information on the Apache Flex web site. You have to check out
the source, figure out how to build the installer, modify the files and
generate the patch from the modified files. The way you generate the patch
depends on what kind of SVN client you are using.
But for now, I will try to see if I can just copy/paste your changes.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Nick Tsitlakidis <ni...@perfectedz.com>.
More than happy to do it but I would like to have some guidance for this.
I'm a total noob with patches since it's the first time I'm actively
contributing something. I'm a member of the list since last year but never
had the time to work on something until now.
Are there any guidelines or a page I can check to learn how to do this?
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Om <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nick,
>
> Can you please create a .patch file so I can apply it directly via svn?
> You an create a JIRA task and attach it there. Thanks for our work on
> this.
>
> Regards,
> Om
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Nick Tsitlakidis <nickt@perfectedz.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Om,
> >
> > Here are the changes I think the installer needs for the Greek locale.
> > I've also included changes where capitalization was correct (considering
> > the locale) but it was inconsistent with the English version (all caps)
> and
> > added translations where needed.
> >
> > LEt me know if you have any issues.
> >
> > 1st screen
> > Select Language -> Επιλέξτε Γλώσσα
> > ISTALL LOG -> ΑΡΧΕΙΟ ΚΑΤΑΓΡΑΦΗΣ ΕΓΚΑΤΑΣΤΑΣΗΣ
> > NEXT -> ΕΠΟΜΕΝΟ
> > BROWSE -> ΑΝΑΖΗΤΗΣΗ
> > Select installation directory -> Επιλέξτε τον κατάλογο εγκατάστασης
> > The selected directory is not empty -> Ο κατάλογος που επιλέξατε δεν
> είναι
> > άδειος
> >
> >
> > 2nd screen
> > CLOSE -> ΕΞΟΔΟΣ
> > INSTALL -> ΕΓΚΑΤΑΣΤΑΣΗ
> >
> > 3d screen
> > Installing... -> Εγκατάσταση...
> > OPEN APACHE FLEX FOLDER -> ΑΝΟΙΓΜΑ ΦΑΚΕΛΟΥ APACHE FLEX
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Om <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Fixed RELEASE_NOTES and the issue that Carol raised with losing
> > selections
> > > while changing languages.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Om
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Nick Tsitlakidis <nickt@perfectedz.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > Having a quick look it seems there are places where translation
> doesn't
> > > > exist. For example the next button keeps the "NEXT" as the label.
> Also
> > > the
> > > > "Select installation directory" doesn't change.
> > > >
> > > > I'll make a list of the changes I think you should do (whether it is
> > > > capitalization or translation) and you can choose what fits in your
> > > > schedule.
> > > >
> > > > Sounds good?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Nick Tsitlakidis <
> > nickt@perfectedz.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > damn, sorry for posting on the other thread. I got confused with
> all
> > > the
> > > > > emails. Sure I can, I'll let you know first thing in the morning
> > (it's
> > > > > midnight here at the moment)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi Nick,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The truncation issues might have to wait, but can you tell use
> where
> > > the
> > > > >> incorrect capitalization is so we can try to fix it?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> -Alex
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 1/2/13 7:32 AM, "Nick Tsitlakidis" <ni...@perfectedz.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Following Carol's comments, using the Greek locale also has some
> > > > >> > inconsistencies. For example incorrect capitalization and
> problems
> > > > with
> > > > >> > truncation as well.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Other than that, using the installer in a clean system (no other
> > > > >> version of
> > > > >> > the installer existing) worked great.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Carol Frampton <
> > cframpto@adobe.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> Just gave this a try. Here are my comments regarding the
> > > > installation
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> >> use:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> 1. When I tried to install it I got that "there is something
> > > wrong"
> > > > >> AIR
> > > > >> >> error which is really unhelpful but I knew it meant I had to
> > > > uninstall
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> old installer first. Why can't the old installer and the new
> > > > installer
> > > > >> >> co-exist since they are each installing a different version of
> > > Flex?
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> 2. As Justin said, the DISCLAIMER needs to be removed.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> 3. Depending on the locale, the text in some of the buttons is
> > > > >> truncated
> > > > >> >> which looks bad. For example, try French.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> 4. When I switch the language in the middle of checking all
> the
> > > > >> license
> > > > >> >> agreements, whatever I've already checked is cleared.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Carol
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> On 1/1/13 1 :23AM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>> This is version 2.0 of Apache Flex SDK Installer. This
> version
> > > lets
> > > > >> users
> > > > >> >>> download the Apache Flex SDK 4.9 and its required
> dependencies.
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>>
> > https://people.apache.org/~bigosmallm/installapacheflex_2.0_RC1/
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> Significant improvements over previous version:
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> 1. UI of the components selection and license screen has been
> > > fixed
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> >>> use
> > > > >> >>> just checkboxes for selection
> > > > >> >>> 2. All the various locales have been enabled.
> > > > >> >>> 3. By default, Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 downloads Adobe
> > > Flash
> > > > >> Player
> > > > >> >>> 11.1 and Adobe AIR SDK 3.4. If you want to change it to any
> > other
> > > > >> >>> supported combination, you save a copy of the config file
> found
> > > at:
> > > > >> >>> http://incubator.apache.org/flex/sdk-installer-config-2.0.xml
> ,
> > > > >> modify the
> > > > >> >>> download urls to point to the required versions. Then run the
> > app
> > > > >> from
> > > > >> >>> command line mode with the optional command line parameter:
> > > > >> -config=<path
> > > > >> >>> to config file>
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> Please take it for a spin and let us know your feedback. We
> > would
> > > > >> like to
> > > > >> >>> put up a vote asap and release this right away!
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> Thanks,
> > > > >> >>> Om
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Alex Harui
> > > > >> Flex SDK Team
> > > > >> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> > > > >> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Nick Tsitlakidis,
> > > > >
> > > > > CEO and Software Architect at Perfect Edge LTD.
> > > > > www.perfectedz.com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Nick Tsitlakidis,
> > > >
> > > > CEO and Software Architect at Perfect Edge LTD.
> > > > www.perfectedz.com
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nick Tsitlakidis,
> >
> > CEO and Software Architect at Perfect Edge LTD.
> > www.perfectedz.com
> >
>
--
Nick Tsitlakidis,
CEO and Software Architect at Perfect Edge LTD.
www.perfectedz.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Om <bi...@gmail.com>.
Nick,
Can you please create a .patch file so I can apply it directly via svn?
You an create a JIRA task and attach it there. Thanks for our work on
this.
Regards,
Om
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Nick Tsitlakidis <ni...@perfectedz.com>wrote:
> Om,
>
> Here are the changes I think the installer needs for the Greek locale.
> I've also included changes where capitalization was correct (considering
> the locale) but it was inconsistent with the English version (all caps) and
> added translations where needed.
>
> LEt me know if you have any issues.
>
> 1st screen
> Select Language -> Επιλέξτε Γλώσσα
> ISTALL LOG -> ΑΡΧΕΙΟ ΚΑΤΑΓΡΑΦΗΣ ΕΓΚΑΤΑΣΤΑΣΗΣ
> NEXT -> ΕΠΟΜΕΝΟ
> BROWSE -> ΑΝΑΖΗΤΗΣΗ
> Select installation directory -> Επιλέξτε τον κατάλογο εγκατάστασης
> The selected directory is not empty -> Ο κατάλογος που επιλέξατε δεν είναι
> άδειος
>
>
> 2nd screen
> CLOSE -> ΕΞΟΔΟΣ
> INSTALL -> ΕΓΚΑΤΑΣΤΑΣΗ
>
> 3d screen
> Installing... -> Εγκατάσταση...
> OPEN APACHE FLEX FOLDER -> ΑΝΟΙΓΜΑ ΦΑΚΕΛΟΥ APACHE FLEX
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Om <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Fixed RELEASE_NOTES and the issue that Carol raised with losing
> selections
> > while changing languages.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Om
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Nick Tsitlakidis <nickt@perfectedz.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Having a quick look it seems there are places where translation doesn't
> > > exist. For example the next button keeps the "NEXT" as the label. Also
> > the
> > > "Select installation directory" doesn't change.
> > >
> > > I'll make a list of the changes I think you should do (whether it is
> > > capitalization or translation) and you can choose what fits in your
> > > schedule.
> > >
> > > Sounds good?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Nick Tsitlakidis <
> nickt@perfectedz.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > damn, sorry for posting on the other thread. I got confused with all
> > the
> > > > emails. Sure I can, I'll let you know first thing in the morning
> (it's
> > > > midnight here at the moment)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi Nick,
> > > >>
> > > >> The truncation issues might have to wait, but can you tell use where
> > the
> > > >> incorrect capitalization is so we can try to fix it?
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> -Alex
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On 1/2/13 7:32 AM, "Nick Tsitlakidis" <ni...@perfectedz.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Following Carol's comments, using the Greek locale also has some
> > > >> > inconsistencies. For example incorrect capitalization and problems
> > > with
> > > >> > truncation as well.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Other than that, using the installer in a clean system (no other
> > > >> version of
> > > >> > the installer existing) worked great.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Carol Frampton <
> cframpto@adobe.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> Just gave this a try. Here are my comments regarding the
> > > installation
> > > >> and
> > > >> >> use:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> 1. When I tried to install it I got that "there is something
> > wrong"
> > > >> AIR
> > > >> >> error which is really unhelpful but I knew it meant I had to
> > > uninstall
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> old installer first. Why can't the old installer and the new
> > > installer
> > > >> >> co-exist since they are each installing a different version of
> > Flex?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> 2. As Justin said, the DISCLAIMER needs to be removed.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> 3. Depending on the locale, the text in some of the buttons is
> > > >> truncated
> > > >> >> which looks bad. For example, try French.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> 4. When I switch the language in the middle of checking all the
> > > >> license
> > > >> >> agreements, whatever I've already checked is cleared.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Carol
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> On 1/1/13 1 :23AM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>> This is version 2.0 of Apache Flex SDK Installer. This version
> > lets
> > > >> users
> > > >> >>> download the Apache Flex SDK 4.9 and its required dependencies.
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>
> https://people.apache.org/~bigosmallm/installapacheflex_2.0_RC1/
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> Significant improvements over previous version:
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> 1. UI of the components selection and license screen has been
> > fixed
> > > >> to
> > > >> >>> use
> > > >> >>> just checkboxes for selection
> > > >> >>> 2. All the various locales have been enabled.
> > > >> >>> 3. By default, Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 downloads Adobe
> > Flash
> > > >> Player
> > > >> >>> 11.1 and Adobe AIR SDK 3.4. If you want to change it to any
> other
> > > >> >>> supported combination, you save a copy of the config file found
> > at:
> > > >> >>> http://incubator.apache.org/flex/sdk-installer-config-2.0.xml,
> > > >> modify the
> > > >> >>> download urls to point to the required versions. Then run the
> app
> > > >> from
> > > >> >>> command line mode with the optional command line parameter:
> > > >> -config=<path
> > > >> >>> to config file>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> Please take it for a spin and let us know your feedback. We
> would
> > > >> like to
> > > >> >>> put up a vote asap and release this right away!
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> Thanks,
> > > >> >>> Om
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Alex Harui
> > > >> Flex SDK Team
> > > >> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> > > >> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Nick Tsitlakidis,
> > > >
> > > > CEO and Software Architect at Perfect Edge LTD.
> > > > www.perfectedz.com
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Nick Tsitlakidis,
> > >
> > > CEO and Software Architect at Perfect Edge LTD.
> > > www.perfectedz.com
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Nick Tsitlakidis,
>
> CEO and Software Architect at Perfect Edge LTD.
> www.perfectedz.com
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Nick Tsitlakidis <ni...@perfectedz.com>.
Om,
Here are the changes I think the installer needs for the Greek locale.
I've also included changes where capitalization was correct (considering
the locale) but it was inconsistent with the English version (all caps) and
added translations where needed.
LEt me know if you have any issues.
1st screen
Select Language -> Επιλέξτε Γλώσσα
ISTALL LOG -> ΑΡΧΕΙΟ ΚΑΤΑΓΡΑΦΗΣ ΕΓΚΑΤΑΣΤΑΣΗΣ
NEXT -> ΕΠΟΜΕΝΟ
BROWSE -> ΑΝΑΖΗΤΗΣΗ
Select installation directory -> Επιλέξτε τον κατάλογο εγκατάστασης
The selected directory is not empty -> Ο κατάλογος που επιλέξατε δεν είναι
άδειος
2nd screen
CLOSE -> ΕΞΟΔΟΣ
INSTALL -> ΕΓΚΑΤΑΣΤΑΣΗ
3d screen
Installing... -> Εγκατάσταση...
OPEN APACHE FLEX FOLDER -> ΑΝΟΙΓΜΑ ΦΑΚΕΛΟΥ APACHE FLEX
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Om <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fixed RELEASE_NOTES and the issue that Carol raised with losing selections
> while changing languages.
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Nick Tsitlakidis <nickt@perfectedz.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Having a quick look it seems there are places where translation doesn't
> > exist. For example the next button keeps the "NEXT" as the label. Also
> the
> > "Select installation directory" doesn't change.
> >
> > I'll make a list of the changes I think you should do (whether it is
> > capitalization or translation) and you can choose what fits in your
> > schedule.
> >
> > Sounds good?
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Nick Tsitlakidis <nickt@perfectedz.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > damn, sorry for posting on the other thread. I got confused with all
> the
> > > emails. Sure I can, I'll let you know first thing in the morning (it's
> > > midnight here at the moment)
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Nick,
> > >>
> > >> The truncation issues might have to wait, but can you tell use where
> the
> > >> incorrect capitalization is so we can try to fix it?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> -Alex
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 1/2/13 7:32 AM, "Nick Tsitlakidis" <ni...@perfectedz.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Following Carol's comments, using the Greek locale also has some
> > >> > inconsistencies. For example incorrect capitalization and problems
> > with
> > >> > truncation as well.
> > >> >
> > >> > Other than that, using the installer in a clean system (no other
> > >> version of
> > >> > the installer existing) worked great.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Just gave this a try. Here are my comments regarding the
> > installation
> > >> and
> > >> >> use:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> 1. When I tried to install it I got that "there is something
> wrong"
> > >> AIR
> > >> >> error which is really unhelpful but I knew it meant I had to
> > uninstall
> > >> the
> > >> >> old installer first. Why can't the old installer and the new
> > installer
> > >> >> co-exist since they are each installing a different version of
> Flex?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> 2. As Justin said, the DISCLAIMER needs to be removed.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> 3. Depending on the locale, the text in some of the buttons is
> > >> truncated
> > >> >> which looks bad. For example, try French.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> 4. When I switch the language in the middle of checking all the
> > >> license
> > >> >> agreements, whatever I've already checked is cleared.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Carol
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On 1/1/13 1 :23AM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> This is version 2.0 of Apache Flex SDK Installer. This version
> lets
> > >> users
> > >> >>> download the Apache Flex SDK 4.9 and its required dependencies.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> https://people.apache.org/~bigosmallm/installapacheflex_2.0_RC1/
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Significant improvements over previous version:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> 1. UI of the components selection and license screen has been
> fixed
> > >> to
> > >> >>> use
> > >> >>> just checkboxes for selection
> > >> >>> 2. All the various locales have been enabled.
> > >> >>> 3. By default, Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 downloads Adobe
> Flash
> > >> Player
> > >> >>> 11.1 and Adobe AIR SDK 3.4. If you want to change it to any other
> > >> >>> supported combination, you save a copy of the config file found
> at:
> > >> >>> http://incubator.apache.org/flex/sdk-installer-config-2.0.xml,
> > >> modify the
> > >> >>> download urls to point to the required versions. Then run the app
> > >> from
> > >> >>> command line mode with the optional command line parameter:
> > >> -config=<path
> > >> >>> to config file>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Please take it for a spin and let us know your feedback. We would
> > >> like to
> > >> >>> put up a vote asap and release this right away!
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Thanks,
> > >> >>> Om
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Alex Harui
> > >> Flex SDK Team
> > >> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> > >> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Nick Tsitlakidis,
> > >
> > > CEO and Software Architect at Perfect Edge LTD.
> > > www.perfectedz.com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nick Tsitlakidis,
> >
> > CEO and Software Architect at Perfect Edge LTD.
> > www.perfectedz.com
> >
>
--
Nick Tsitlakidis,
CEO and Software Architect at Perfect Edge LTD.
www.perfectedz.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Om <bi...@gmail.com>.
Fixed RELEASE_NOTES and the issue that Carol raised with losing selections
while changing languages.
Thanks,
Om
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Nick Tsitlakidis <ni...@perfectedz.com>wrote:
> Having a quick look it seems there are places where translation doesn't
> exist. For example the next button keeps the "NEXT" as the label. Also the
> "Select installation directory" doesn't change.
>
> I'll make a list of the changes I think you should do (whether it is
> capitalization or translation) and you can choose what fits in your
> schedule.
>
> Sounds good?
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Nick Tsitlakidis <nickt@perfectedz.com
> >wrote:
>
> > damn, sorry for posting on the other thread. I got confused with all the
> > emails. Sure I can, I'll let you know first thing in the morning (it's
> > midnight here at the moment)
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Nick,
> >>
> >> The truncation issues might have to wait, but can you tell use where the
> >> incorrect capitalization is so we can try to fix it?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/2/13 7:32 AM, "Nick Tsitlakidis" <ni...@perfectedz.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Following Carol's comments, using the Greek locale also has some
> >> > inconsistencies. For example incorrect capitalization and problems
> with
> >> > truncation as well.
> >> >
> >> > Other than that, using the installer in a clean system (no other
> >> version of
> >> > the installer existing) worked great.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Just gave this a try. Here are my comments regarding the
> installation
> >> and
> >> >> use:
> >> >>
> >> >> 1. When I tried to install it I got that "there is something wrong"
> >> AIR
> >> >> error which is really unhelpful but I knew it meant I had to
> uninstall
> >> the
> >> >> old installer first. Why can't the old installer and the new
> installer
> >> >> co-exist since they are each installing a different version of Flex?
> >> >>
> >> >> 2. As Justin said, the DISCLAIMER needs to be removed.
> >> >>
> >> >> 3. Depending on the locale, the text in some of the buttons is
> >> truncated
> >> >> which looks bad. For example, try French.
> >> >>
> >> >> 4. When I switch the language in the middle of checking all the
> >> license
> >> >> agreements, whatever I've already checked is cleared.
> >> >>
> >> >> Carol
> >> >>
> >> >> On 1/1/13 1 :23AM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> This is version 2.0 of Apache Flex SDK Installer. This version lets
> >> users
> >> >>> download the Apache Flex SDK 4.9 and its required dependencies.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> https://people.apache.org/~bigosmallm/installapacheflex_2.0_RC1/
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Significant improvements over previous version:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 1. UI of the components selection and license screen has been fixed
> >> to
> >> >>> use
> >> >>> just checkboxes for selection
> >> >>> 2. All the various locales have been enabled.
> >> >>> 3. By default, Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 downloads Adobe Flash
> >> Player
> >> >>> 11.1 and Adobe AIR SDK 3.4. If you want to change it to any other
> >> >>> supported combination, you save a copy of the config file found at:
> >> >>> http://incubator.apache.org/flex/sdk-installer-config-2.0.xml,
> >> modify the
> >> >>> download urls to point to the required versions. Then run the app
> >> from
> >> >>> command line mode with the optional command line parameter:
> >> -config=<path
> >> >>> to config file>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Please take it for a spin and let us know your feedback. We would
> >> like to
> >> >>> put up a vote asap and release this right away!
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thanks,
> >> >>> Om
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Alex Harui
> >> Flex SDK Team
> >> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> >> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nick Tsitlakidis,
> >
> > CEO and Software Architect at Perfect Edge LTD.
> > www.perfectedz.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Nick Tsitlakidis,
>
> CEO and Software Architect at Perfect Edge LTD.
> www.perfectedz.com
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Nick Tsitlakidis <ni...@perfectedz.com>.
Having a quick look it seems there are places where translation doesn't
exist. For example the next button keeps the "NEXT" as the label. Also the
"Select installation directory" doesn't change.
I'll make a list of the changes I think you should do (whether it is
capitalization or translation) and you can choose what fits in your
schedule.
Sounds good?
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Nick Tsitlakidis <ni...@perfectedz.com>wrote:
> damn, sorry for posting on the other thread. I got confused with all the
> emails. Sure I can, I'll let you know first thing in the morning (it's
> midnight here at the moment)
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Nick,
>>
>> The truncation issues might have to wait, but can you tell use where the
>> incorrect capitalization is so we can try to fix it?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Alex
>>
>>
>> On 1/2/13 7:32 AM, "Nick Tsitlakidis" <ni...@perfectedz.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Following Carol's comments, using the Greek locale also has some
>> > inconsistencies. For example incorrect capitalization and problems with
>> > truncation as well.
>> >
>> > Other than that, using the installer in a clean system (no other
>> version of
>> > the installer existing) worked great.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Just gave this a try. Here are my comments regarding the installation
>> and
>> >> use:
>> >>
>> >> 1. When I tried to install it I got that "there is something wrong"
>> AIR
>> >> error which is really unhelpful but I knew it meant I had to uninstall
>> the
>> >> old installer first. Why can't the old installer and the new installer
>> >> co-exist since they are each installing a different version of Flex?
>> >>
>> >> 2. As Justin said, the DISCLAIMER needs to be removed.
>> >>
>> >> 3. Depending on the locale, the text in some of the buttons is
>> truncated
>> >> which looks bad. For example, try French.
>> >>
>> >> 4. When I switch the language in the middle of checking all the
>> license
>> >> agreements, whatever I've already checked is cleared.
>> >>
>> >> Carol
>> >>
>> >> On 1/1/13 1 :23AM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> This is version 2.0 of Apache Flex SDK Installer. This version lets
>> users
>> >>> download the Apache Flex SDK 4.9 and its required dependencies.
>> >>>
>> >>> https://people.apache.org/~bigosmallm/installapacheflex_2.0_RC1/
>> >>>
>> >>> Significant improvements over previous version:
>> >>>
>> >>> 1. UI of the components selection and license screen has been fixed
>> to
>> >>> use
>> >>> just checkboxes for selection
>> >>> 2. All the various locales have been enabled.
>> >>> 3. By default, Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 downloads Adobe Flash
>> Player
>> >>> 11.1 and Adobe AIR SDK 3.4. If you want to change it to any other
>> >>> supported combination, you save a copy of the config file found at:
>> >>> http://incubator.apache.org/flex/sdk-installer-config-2.0.xml,
>> modify the
>> >>> download urls to point to the required versions. Then run the app
>> from
>> >>> command line mode with the optional command line parameter:
>> -config=<path
>> >>> to config file>
>> >>>
>> >>> Please take it for a spin and let us know your feedback. We would
>> like to
>> >>> put up a vote asap and release this right away!
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> Om
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Alex Harui
>> Flex SDK Team
>> Adobe Systems, Inc.
>> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Nick Tsitlakidis,
>
> CEO and Software Architect at Perfect Edge LTD.
> www.perfectedz.com
>
--
Nick Tsitlakidis,
CEO and Software Architect at Perfect Edge LTD.
www.perfectedz.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Nick Tsitlakidis <ni...@perfectedz.com>.
damn, sorry for posting on the other thread. I got confused with all the
emails. Sure I can, I'll let you know first thing in the morning (it's
midnight here at the moment)
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi Nick,
>
> The truncation issues might have to wait, but can you tell use where the
> incorrect capitalization is so we can try to fix it?
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
>
> On 1/2/13 7:32 AM, "Nick Tsitlakidis" <ni...@perfectedz.com> wrote:
>
> > Following Carol's comments, using the Greek locale also has some
> > inconsistencies. For example incorrect capitalization and problems with
> > truncation as well.
> >
> > Other than that, using the installer in a clean system (no other version
> of
> > the installer existing) worked great.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Just gave this a try. Here are my comments regarding the installation
> and
> >> use:
> >>
> >> 1. When I tried to install it I got that "there is something wrong" AIR
> >> error which is really unhelpful but I knew it meant I had to uninstall
> the
> >> old installer first. Why can't the old installer and the new installer
> >> co-exist since they are each installing a different version of Flex?
> >>
> >> 2. As Justin said, the DISCLAIMER needs to be removed.
> >>
> >> 3. Depending on the locale, the text in some of the buttons is truncated
> >> which looks bad. For example, try French.
> >>
> >> 4. When I switch the language in the middle of checking all the license
> >> agreements, whatever I've already checked is cleared.
> >>
> >> Carol
> >>
> >> On 1/1/13 1 :23AM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> This is version 2.0 of Apache Flex SDK Installer. This version lets
> users
> >>> download the Apache Flex SDK 4.9 and its required dependencies.
> >>>
> >>> https://people.apache.org/~bigosmallm/installapacheflex_2.0_RC1/
> >>>
> >>> Significant improvements over previous version:
> >>>
> >>> 1. UI of the components selection and license screen has been fixed to
> >>> use
> >>> just checkboxes for selection
> >>> 2. All the various locales have been enabled.
> >>> 3. By default, Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 downloads Adobe Flash
> Player
> >>> 11.1 and Adobe AIR SDK 3.4. If you want to change it to any other
> >>> supported combination, you save a copy of the config file found at:
> >>> http://incubator.apache.org/flex/sdk-installer-config-2.0.xml, modify
> the
> >>> download urls to point to the required versions. Then run the app from
> >>> command line mode with the optional command line parameter:
> -config=<path
> >>> to config file>
> >>>
> >>> Please take it for a spin and let us know your feedback. We would
> like to
> >>> put up a vote asap and release this right away!
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Om
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Alex Harui
> Flex SDK Team
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>
>
--
Nick Tsitlakidis,
CEO and Software Architect at Perfect Edge LTD.
www.perfectedz.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Hi Nick,
The truncation issues might have to wait, but can you tell use where the
incorrect capitalization is so we can try to fix it?
Thanks,
-Alex
On 1/2/13 7:32 AM, "Nick Tsitlakidis" <ni...@perfectedz.com> wrote:
> Following Carol's comments, using the Greek locale also has some
> inconsistencies. For example incorrect capitalization and problems with
> truncation as well.
>
> Other than that, using the installer in a clean system (no other version of
> the installer existing) worked great.
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> Just gave this a try. Here are my comments regarding the installation and
>> use:
>>
>> 1. When I tried to install it I got that "there is something wrong" AIR
>> error which is really unhelpful but I knew it meant I had to uninstall the
>> old installer first. Why can't the old installer and the new installer
>> co-exist since they are each installing a different version of Flex?
>>
>> 2. As Justin said, the DISCLAIMER needs to be removed.
>>
>> 3. Depending on the locale, the text in some of the buttons is truncated
>> which looks bad. For example, try French.
>>
>> 4. When I switch the language in the middle of checking all the license
>> agreements, whatever I've already checked is cleared.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>> On 1/1/13 1 :23AM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This is version 2.0 of Apache Flex SDK Installer. This version lets users
>>> download the Apache Flex SDK 4.9 and its required dependencies.
>>>
>>> https://people.apache.org/~bigosmallm/installapacheflex_2.0_RC1/
>>>
>>> Significant improvements over previous version:
>>>
>>> 1. UI of the components selection and license screen has been fixed to
>>> use
>>> just checkboxes for selection
>>> 2. All the various locales have been enabled.
>>> 3. By default, Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 downloads Adobe Flash Player
>>> 11.1 and Adobe AIR SDK 3.4. If you want to change it to any other
>>> supported combination, you save a copy of the config file found at:
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/flex/sdk-installer-config-2.0.xml, modify the
>>> download urls to point to the required versions. Then run the app from
>>> command line mode with the optional command line parameter: -config=<path
>>> to config file>
>>>
>>> Please take it for a spin and let us know your feedback. We would like to
>>> put up a vote asap and release this right away!
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Om
>>
>>
>
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Nick Tsitlakidis <ni...@perfectedz.com>.
Following Carol's comments, using the Greek locale also has some
inconsistencies. For example incorrect capitalization and problems with
truncation as well.
Other than that, using the installer in a clean system (no other version of
the installer existing) worked great.
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Just gave this a try. Here are my comments regarding the installation and
> use:
>
> 1. When I tried to install it I got that "there is something wrong" AIR
> error which is really unhelpful but I knew it meant I had to uninstall the
> old installer first. Why can't the old installer and the new installer
> co-exist since they are each installing a different version of Flex?
>
> 2. As Justin said, the DISCLAIMER needs to be removed.
>
> 3. Depending on the locale, the text in some of the buttons is truncated
> which looks bad. For example, try French.
>
> 4. When I switch the language in the middle of checking all the license
> agreements, whatever I've already checked is cleared.
>
> Carol
>
> On 1/1/13 1 :23AM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >This is version 2.0 of Apache Flex SDK Installer. This version lets users
> >download the Apache Flex SDK 4.9 and its required dependencies.
> >
> >https://people.apache.org/~bigosmallm/installapacheflex_2.0_RC1/
> >
> >Significant improvements over previous version:
> >
> >1. UI of the components selection and license screen has been fixed to
> >use
> >just checkboxes for selection
> >2. All the various locales have been enabled.
> >3. By default, Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 downloads Adobe Flash Player
> >11.1 and Adobe AIR SDK 3.4. If you want to change it to any other
> >supported combination, you save a copy of the config file found at:
> >http://incubator.apache.org/flex/sdk-installer-config-2.0.xml, modify the
> >download urls to point to the required versions. Then run the app from
> >command line mode with the optional command line parameter: -config=<path
> >to config file>
> >
> >Please take it for a spin and let us know your feedback. We would like to
> >put up a vote asap and release this right away!
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Om
>
>
--
Nick Tsitlakidis,
CEO and Software Architect at Perfect Edge LTD.
www.perfectedz.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>.
Just gave this a try. Here are my comments regarding the installation and
use:
1. When I tried to install it I got that "there is something wrong" AIR
error which is really unhelpful but I knew it meant I had to uninstall the
old installer first. Why can't the old installer and the new installer
co-exist since they are each installing a different version of Flex?
2. As Justin said, the DISCLAIMER needs to be removed.
3. Depending on the locale, the text in some of the buttons is truncated
which looks bad. For example, try French.
4. When I switch the language in the middle of checking all the license
agreements, whatever I've already checked is cleared.
Carol
On 1/1/13 1 :23AM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>This is version 2.0 of Apache Flex SDK Installer. This version lets users
>download the Apache Flex SDK 4.9 and its required dependencies.
>
>https://people.apache.org/~bigosmallm/installapacheflex_2.0_RC1/
>
>Significant improvements over previous version:
>
>1. UI of the components selection and license screen has been fixed to
>use
>just checkboxes for selection
>2. All the various locales have been enabled.
>3. By default, Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 downloads Adobe Flash Player
>11.1 and Adobe AIR SDK 3.4. If you want to change it to any other
>supported combination, you save a copy of the config file found at:
>http://incubator.apache.org/flex/sdk-installer-config-2.0.xml, modify the
>download urls to point to the required versions. Then run the app from
>command line mode with the optional command line parameter: -config=<path
>to config file>
>
>Please take it for a spin and let us know your feedback. We would like to
>put up a vote asap and release this right away!
>
>Thanks,
>Om
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 1/2/13 6:09 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
> I'm sorry I'm late to this discussion, but all I can say is: Wow! and:
> Really?
Yeah, sorry. I tend to be conservative about legal/policy stuff. I know
some others have the "ask for forgiveness" philosophy, but that tends not to
work too well in "corporate veil" situations.
>
> The whole website is in SVN. It is source (mdtext), consumed by a compiler
> (the buildbot), spit out as HTML and released outside the project on the
> WWW. How is that different from our other sources? Do you suggest we have a
> vote on every update of the site?
I think the line is about human readable, passive content, but I posed this
in the mentor thread I just sent out.
>
> One rule to rule them all, if we insist on the letter, instead of the
> spirit, of the rules. Mind you, I think you're killing a nice tool in the
> process, one of the more successful tools in keeping the SDK 'alive and
> kicking' in the real world.
I'm not trying to kill the tool. In fact I have suggested ways to implement
the desired goals that I think conform to the Apache policy.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
[DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
I'm sorry I'm late to this discussion, but all I can say is: Wow! and:
Really?
The whole website is in SVN. It is source (mdtext), consumed by a compiler
(the buildbot), spit out as HTML and released outside the project on the
WWW. How is that different from our other sources? Do you suggest we have a
vote on every update of the site?
One rule to rule them all, if we insist on the letter, instead of the
spirit, of the rules. Mind you, I think you're killing a nice tool in the
process, one of the more successful tools in keeping the SDK 'alive and
kicking' in the real world.
I know about the PMC responsibilities and all, but there is such a thing as
going too far.
Just my $0.02,
EdB
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Well, that group would need approval from Apache to use Flex anywhere in the
> name of the installer, but yeah, an independent group of folks can certainly
> go off and create their own installer.
Seems less of an issue than the process that is currently being suggested. Worse case it can be called something else.
> The badge installer would find the config using a relative path just like the standalone
> installers.
Not sure that is actually possible, unless the the XML was compiled into the swf rather than loaded (not really optimal) or the values hard coded.
> IMO, yes. The config.xml file should look up 4.9 via dist, not incubator.
Well currently it can't as the file is not there. We couldn't test it or vote on it if we did that.
Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 1/1/13 11:13 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> I'm not sure Apache Flex is allowed to use Github as a end-run around Apache
>> policy.
>
> The installer would not belong to Apache but be a separate project that is
> worked on by people who want to give users of the Flex SDK an easy way to
> install it. All it does it take the binary kit from Apache and download some
> 3rd party software and combine them into a usable SDK. None of that is against
> Apache polity. Users may have less trust in software that comes form outside
> Apache but that is their choice to make.
Well, that group would need approval from Apache to use Flex anywhere in the
name of the installer, but yeah, an independent group of folks can certainly
go off and create their own installer.
I think there is some way to create an installer within Apache Flex that
takes one vote and makes everyone happy. I'm not sure this is the right
design, but I haven't spent much time thinking about a better way.
>
>> While I don't like the downloading of the config.xml from the site because I
>> think it will pose the issues I listed in another reply, if we want to go
>> that way, I believe the process is that we have to vote to approve the
>> deployment of the config.xml to the website, then test the installer against
>> it and then vote on the installer. We could try to do it as one, but my
>> main objection to that is that we won't have tested the installer's code
>> path that downloads the config.xml from the site. So I think it has to be
>> two votes.
>
> So you really want to impose this process on future release managers, the
> harder the process it the less likely people will want to take it on. It's
> already much more complex than some other Apache projects. Correct me if I
> wrong but I think your saying that every release of the installer woudl
> require 2 votes and every release of the SDK require 2 or 3 votes?
No, I don't. I think this is symptomatic of not having the right design. I
am hopeful we can put our heads together and come up with a better design
"later". For now though, my five minute of thinking says I would rather go
back and not have the installer download from the site. The badge installer
would find the config using a relative path just like the standalone
installers. Then one vote and we're done! Unless I'm missing something.
>
>> The main delay is caused by the delay in getting the final dist folder.
>
> Really? Until that is set up we can use /incubator/flex.
IMO, yes. The config.xml file should look up 4.9 via dist, not incubator.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> I'm not sure Apache Flex is allowed to use Github as a end-run around Apache policy.
The installer would not belong to Apache but be a separate project that is worked on by people who want to give users of the Flex SDK an easy way to install it. All it does it take the binary kit from Apache and download some 3rd party software and combine them into a usable SDK. None of that is against Apache polity. Users may have less trust in software that comes form outside Apache but that is their choice to make.
> While I don't like the downloading of the config.xml from the site because I
> think it will pose the issues I listed in another reply, if we want to go
> that way, I believe the process is that we have to vote to approve the
> deployment of the config.xml to the website, then test the installer against
> it and then vote on the installer. We could try to do it as one, but my
> main objection to that is that we won't have tested the installer's code
> path that downloads the config.xml from the site. So I think it has to be
> two votes.
So you really want to impose this process on future release managers, the harder the process it the less likely people will want to take it on. It's already much more complex than some other Apache projects. Correct me if I wrong but I think your saying that every release of the installer woudl require 2 votes and every release of the SDK require 2 or 3 votes?
> The main delay is caused by the delay in getting the final dist folder.
Really? Until that is set up we can use /incubator/flex.
Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 1/1/13 10:37 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Are you suggesting that the workflow is to use the -config switch for
>> testing? Then we are not testing the final configuration.
>
> The same XML file would be uploaded so we would be testing the final config.
>
> Again this is a program to help users download the binaries to use in their
> IDE of choice, it's provided to help them and is not really part of the SDK
> itself. If you don't agree with how the installer is currently working please
> come up with a suggestion to fix it so it complies with what you think the
> legal issue is - which I have to say I'm still unsure actually exists. If then
> we can't come up with a way around that then I suggest we host the installer
> exe/dmg files externally and move the code out of Apache SVN to github.
I'm not sure Apache Flex is allowed to use Github as a end-run around Apache
policy.
While I don't like the downloading of the config.xml from the site because I
think it will pose the issues I listed in another reply, if we want to go
that way, I believe the process is that we have to vote to approve the
deployment of the config.xml to the website, then test the installer against
it and then vote on the installer. We could try to do it as one, but my
main objection to that is that we won't have tested the installer's code
path that downloads the config.xml from the site. So I think it has to be
two votes.
FWIW, I am hopeful this is not the last release of the installer. I hope we
continue to get rid of dependencies and need to change the installer again.
>
> This is just delaying the official 4.9 release announcement and stoping users
> from installing the SDK.
The main delay is caused by the delay in getting the final dist folder.
>From reading board and infra emails, it appears that they are trying to
finalize a script that creates all of the TLP infra but that is driven by
having "final board minutes" which apparently have been delayed by the
holiday season, although I see plenty of mods being made to the script.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Are you suggesting that the workflow is to use the -config switch for
> testing? Then we are not testing the final configuration.
The same XML file would be uploaded so we would be testing the final config.
Again this is a program to help users download the binaries to use in their IDE of choice, it's provided to help them and is not really part of the SDK itself. If you don't agree with how the installer is currently working please come up with a suggestion to fix it so it complies with what you think the legal issue is - which I have to say I'm still unsure actually exists. If then we can't come up with a way around that then I suggest we host the installer exe/dmg files externally and move the code out of Apache SVN to github.
This is just delaying the official 4.9 release announcement and stoping users from installing the SDK.
> Many Flex shops are stuck on older versions because it
> takes a while to approve new versions for use. So they have to install
> those old versions again from time to time.
IMO they are likely to just copy existing working SDK directories about rather than recompile an old SDK or use the installer.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 1/1/13 2:00 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> 2) Is this a correct implementation? I'm wondering how would we test the
>> next release. As soon as you replace/update that .xml file so we can test
>> the next installer we are forcing everyone to suddenly start taking the next
>> version. I understand you are saying we don't need to "test" the installer
>> ever again, but I think we'd need to at least run it ourselves.
>
> When we make the next release of the SDK we can make teh change to the XML
> (locally) and test the installer at the same time, once the vote has passed we
> distrubite the new SDK and then update the XML file.
Are you suggesting that the workflow is to use the -config switch for
testing? Then we are not testing the final configuration.
>
>> 3) Is it reasonable to suddenly have the .xml file cause a different version
>> to install to the customer's computer?
>
> The new version will only be be downloaded and installed if after the XML fie
> is update the user runs the installers is again. It doesn't happen
> suddenly/automatically.
Right. If we are successful as a TLP, then somewhere in the world at any
given time some developer will be installing some older version of Apache
Flex on a computer. Many Flex shops are stuck on older versions because it
takes a while to approve new versions for use. So they have to install
those old versions again from time to time. And it would be an impediment
if they suddenly got a newer versions instead. Now maybe the app can
remember the last version installed and offer that one as the default and
hint that there is a newer one available like updaters often do, but I don't
think we should surprise them in a scenario like this.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> 2) Is this a correct implementation? I'm wondering how would we test the
> next release. As soon as you replace/update that .xml file so we can test
> the next installer we are forcing everyone to suddenly start taking the next
> version. I understand you are saying we don't need to "test" the installer
> ever again, but I think we'd need to at least run it ourselves.
When we make the next release of the SDK we can make teh change to the XML (locally) and test the installer at the same time, once the vote has passed we distrubite the new SDK and then update the XML file.
> 3) Is it reasonable to suddenly have the .xml file cause a different version
> to install to the customer's computer?
The new version will only be be downloaded and installed if after the XML fie is update the user runs the installers is again. It doesn't happen suddenly/automatically.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Om <bi...@gmail.com>.
The installer badge swf shares the config.xml, so the claim that it does
not contribute to the content of our website is not true.
The next release will first be locally tested by developers by pointing to
a local copy of the config. Once we are happy with the installation
process.com we switch it to point to to the one on the website and test
locally. .
This is how we test Release Candidates every time. We have had no problems
so far.
When we are ready to promote the installer release, that is when we update
the config xml on the website.
Also, in this case, because we started bundling TLF, we introduced a new
sdk-installer-config-2.0.xml. This prevents us from affecting current
installations.
This was my and Erik's design as to how the Installer should work and
update as new Flex SDKs are released.
You are free to propose your ideas to solve these design issues. But none
of your questions have anything to do with whether config.xml is source or
not. I still maintain that it is not.
Thanks,
Om
On Jan 1, 2013 10:49 AM, "Dave Fisher" <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Jan 1, 2013, at 10:25 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
> > OK, so this looks like a recent change. It seems to me the issues are:
> >
> > 1) Is it ok to take a .xml file from SVN and publish it on the web
> without a
> > vote? Especially since it does not contribute to the content of our web
> > site.
> > 2) Is this a correct implementation? I'm wondering how would we test the
> > next release. As soon as you replace/update that .xml file so we can
> test
> > the next installer we are forcing everyone to suddenly start taking the
> next
> > version. I understand you are saying we don't need to "test" the
> installer
> > ever again, but I think we'd need to at least run it ourselves.
> > 3) Is it reasonable to suddenly have the .xml file cause a different
> version
> > to install to the customer's computer?
> >
> > I think the answer is "no" to all 3. Or did I miss a thread and the
> mentors
> > approved #1?
>
> Not by me. I agree with "no" to all 3.
>
> Flex is now a TLP and the Flex PMC has to decide.
>
> This is a suggestion, but it seems to me that parts of the installer
> configuration file belongs with the Apache Flex 4.9 release, and the rest
> belongs with the installer.
>
> BTW - all parts of releases need to be on the project's area on dist -
> this is official. Everything on dist gets copied to archives automatically.
>
> I think that there can be two configuration files for the installer.
>
> (1) Flex release installation configurations which include the range of
> supported Flash Player, etc.
> (2) Flex installer configurations which point to the installation
> configuration patterns.
>
> I think that this would decouple the two threads of release, make the
> configuration clearly part of a release and most importantly avoid the
> semantic game and edge cases about what is a release.
>
> With the 4.10 (or whatever release) the installer could be programmed to
> go to archives for older releases and configurations.
>
> HTH,
> Dave
>
> >
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 1/1/13 9:43 AM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Jan 1, 2013 8:22 AM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 1/1/13 1:29 AM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The config is not part of the source. There is only a reference to
> its
> >> url
> >>>> in the installer app. The installer was designed with this scenario
> in
> >>>> mind.
> >>>>
> >>>> A copy is included as a convenience to the developer who uses it. In
> >> that
> >>>> sense it is more like a .properties file.
> >>>>
> >>>> We need to be able to change the sdk version without having to push an
> >>>> update to the installer. Bundling the config xml with the source or
> >> binary
> >>>> will cause issues .
> >>>>
> >>> First, let me start off with saying that this kind of issue is a pain
> >> point
> >>> for me as well. Unfortunately, Apache doesn't release just binaries.
> I
> >>> have definitely considered launching my own "company" to handle the
> stuff
> >>> that Apache doesn't do very well, like binary distributions.
> >>>
> >>> AFAIK, the app cannot run without this file. We author it, it lives in
> our
> >>> SVN, etc., so it is source. The definition for binary distro is a
> >> compiled
> >>> version of the source kit. I don't think you can remove files from the
> >>> source distro in making it.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The app will compile and run just fine even without the config xml being
> >> present in the source or binary distro. It is NOT source. Like the
> Flex
> >> SDK, .md5 file, the config xml is just another set of bytes that get
> >> loaded during runtime to be processed.
> >>
> >> The config xml does not get compiled into the binary distro.
> >>
> >>> BTW, I'm not very familiar with .htaccess redirects, but I know we
> have to
> >>> clear our builds from the incubator's dist folder when we get our final
> >> dist
> >>> folder. Would redirects still work for fetching the old incubator
> >> release?
> >>>
> >>
> >> If we just change the url for the flex sdk in the config xml that lives
> on
> >> our website, there is no need for redirects.
> >>
> >>> How does the UI handle choosing which version to download? Justin
> went to
> >>> all of this work to allow different player versions. We don't want to
> >> lock
> >>> folks down to the latest Flex version.
> >>>
> >>
> >> You can pass a config xml with any combination of FP and AIR sdk via the
> >> command line, using the -config option.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Om
> >
> > --
> > Alex Harui
> > Flex SDK Team
> > Adobe Systems, Inc.
> > http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
> >
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jan 1, 2013, at 10:25 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> OK, so this looks like a recent change. It seems to me the issues are:
>
> 1) Is it ok to take a .xml file from SVN and publish it on the web without a
> vote? Especially since it does not contribute to the content of our web
> site.
> 2) Is this a correct implementation? I'm wondering how would we test the
> next release. As soon as you replace/update that .xml file so we can test
> the next installer we are forcing everyone to suddenly start taking the next
> version. I understand you are saying we don't need to "test" the installer
> ever again, but I think we'd need to at least run it ourselves.
> 3) Is it reasonable to suddenly have the .xml file cause a different version
> to install to the customer's computer?
>
> I think the answer is "no" to all 3. Or did I miss a thread and the mentors
> approved #1?
Not by me. I agree with "no" to all 3.
Flex is now a TLP and the Flex PMC has to decide.
This is a suggestion, but it seems to me that parts of the installer configuration file belongs with the Apache Flex 4.9 release, and the rest belongs with the installer.
BTW - all parts of releases need to be on the project's area on dist - this is official. Everything on dist gets copied to archives automatically.
I think that there can be two configuration files for the installer.
(1) Flex release installation configurations which include the range of supported Flash Player, etc.
(2) Flex installer configurations which point to the installation configuration patterns.
I think that this would decouple the two threads of release, make the configuration clearly part of a release and most importantly avoid the semantic game and edge cases about what is a release.
With the 4.10 (or whatever release) the installer could be programmed to go to archives for older releases and configurations.
HTH,
Dave
>
> -Alex
>
> On 1/1/13 9:43 AM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 1, 2013 8:22 AM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/1/13 1:29 AM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The config is not part of the source. There is only a reference to its
>> url
>>>> in the installer app. The installer was designed with this scenario in
>>>> mind.
>>>>
>>>> A copy is included as a convenience to the developer who uses it. In
>> that
>>>> sense it is more like a .properties file.
>>>>
>>>> We need to be able to change the sdk version without having to push an
>>>> update to the installer. Bundling the config xml with the source or
>> binary
>>>> will cause issues .
>>>>
>>> First, let me start off with saying that this kind of issue is a pain
>> point
>>> for me as well. Unfortunately, Apache doesn't release just binaries. I
>>> have definitely considered launching my own "company" to handle the stuff
>>> that Apache doesn't do very well, like binary distributions.
>>>
>>> AFAIK, the app cannot run without this file. We author it, it lives in our
>>> SVN, etc., so it is source. The definition for binary distro is a
>> compiled
>>> version of the source kit. I don't think you can remove files from the
>>> source distro in making it.
>>>
>>
>> The app will compile and run just fine even without the config xml being
>> present in the source or binary distro. It is NOT source. Like the Flex
>> SDK, .md5 file, the config xml is just another set of bytes that get
>> loaded during runtime to be processed.
>>
>> The config xml does not get compiled into the binary distro.
>>
>>> BTW, I'm not very familiar with .htaccess redirects, but I know we have to
>>> clear our builds from the incubator's dist folder when we get our final
>> dist
>>> folder. Would redirects still work for fetching the old incubator
>> release?
>>>
>>
>> If we just change the url for the flex sdk in the config xml that lives on
>> our website, there is no need for redirects.
>>
>>> How does the UI handle choosing which version to download? Justin went to
>>> all of this work to allow different player versions. We don't want to
>> lock
>>> folks down to the latest Flex version.
>>>
>>
>> You can pass a config xml with any combination of FP and AIR sdk via the
>> command line, using the -config option.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Om
>
> --
> Alex Harui
> Flex SDK Team
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
OK, so this looks like a recent change. It seems to me the issues are:
1) Is it ok to take a .xml file from SVN and publish it on the web without a
vote? Especially since it does not contribute to the content of our web
site.
2) Is this a correct implementation? I'm wondering how would we test the
next release. As soon as you replace/update that .xml file so we can test
the next installer we are forcing everyone to suddenly start taking the next
version. I understand you are saying we don't need to "test" the installer
ever again, but I think we'd need to at least run it ourselves.
3) Is it reasonable to suddenly have the .xml file cause a different version
to install to the customer's computer?
I think the answer is "no" to all 3. Or did I miss a thread and the mentors
approved #1?
-Alex
On 1/1/13 9:43 AM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 1, 2013 8:22 AM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/1/13 1:29 AM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The config is not part of the source. There is only a reference to its
> url
>>> in the installer app. The installer was designed with this scenario in
>>> mind.
>>>
>>> A copy is included as a convenience to the developer who uses it. In
> that
>>> sense it is more like a .properties file.
>>>
>>> We need to be able to change the sdk version without having to push an
>>> update to the installer. Bundling the config xml with the source or
> binary
>>> will cause issues .
>>>
>> First, let me start off with saying that this kind of issue is a pain
> point
>> for me as well. Unfortunately, Apache doesn't release just binaries. I
>> have definitely considered launching my own "company" to handle the stuff
>> that Apache doesn't do very well, like binary distributions.
>>
>> AFAIK, the app cannot run without this file. We author it, it lives in our
>> SVN, etc., so it is source. The definition for binary distro is a
> compiled
>> version of the source kit. I don't think you can remove files from the
>> source distro in making it.
>>
>
> The app will compile and run just fine even without the config xml being
> present in the source or binary distro. It is NOT source. Like the Flex
> SDK, .md5 file, the config xml is just another set of bytes that get
> loaded during runtime to be processed.
>
> The config xml does not get compiled into the binary distro.
>
>> BTW, I'm not very familiar with .htaccess redirects, but I know we have to
>> clear our builds from the incubator's dist folder when we get our final
> dist
>> folder. Would redirects still work for fetching the old incubator
> release?
>>
>
> If we just change the url for the flex sdk in the config xml that lives on
> our website, there is no need for redirects.
>
>> How does the UI handle choosing which version to download? Justin went to
>> all of this work to allow different player versions. We don't want to
> lock
>> folks down to the latest Flex version.
>>
>
> You can pass a config xml with any combination of FP and AIR sdk via the
> command line, using the -config option.
>
> Thanks,
> Om
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Om <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 1, 2013 8:22 AM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 1/1/13 1:29 AM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The config is not part of the source. There is only a reference to its
url
> > in the installer app. The installer was designed with this scenario in
> > mind.
> >
> > A copy is included as a convenience to the developer who uses it. In
that
> > sense it is more like a .properties file.
> >
> > We need to be able to change the sdk version without having to push an
> > update to the installer. Bundling the config xml with the source or
binary
> > will cause issues .
> >
> First, let me start off with saying that this kind of issue is a pain
point
> for me as well. Unfortunately, Apache doesn't release just binaries. I
> have definitely considered launching my own "company" to handle the stuff
> that Apache doesn't do very well, like binary distributions.
>
> AFAIK, the app cannot run without this file. We author it, it lives in our
> SVN, etc., so it is source. The definition for binary distro is a
compiled
> version of the source kit. I don't think you can remove files from the
> source distro in making it.
>
The app will compile and run just fine even without the config xml being
present in the source or binary distro. It is NOT source. Like the Flex
SDK, .md5 file, the config xml is just another set of bytes that get
loaded during runtime to be processed.
The config xml does not get compiled into the binary distro.
> BTW, I'm not very familiar with .htaccess redirects, but I know we have to
> clear our builds from the incubator's dist folder when we get our final
dist
> folder. Would redirects still work for fetching the old incubator
release?
>
If we just change the url for the flex sdk in the config xml that lives on
our website, there is no need for redirects.
> How does the UI handle choosing which version to download? Justin went to
> all of this work to allow different player versions. We don't want to
lock
> folks down to the latest Flex version.
>
You can pass a config xml with any combination of FP and AIR sdk via the
command line, using the -config option.
Thanks,
Om
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
HI,
> I don't see why our binary distributions would be a problem to host
> anywhere... The added stuff the installer downloads -- we can't host
> those, but the binary stuff should be ok.
The binary kit as produced by Apache is fine and could be hosted anywhere, what I meant was a complete zip of the SDK including AIR + player globals etc integrated.
It would be another way that user could conveniently get and use the SDK without jumping though what they see as unnecessary hoops.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 1/1/13 3:15 PM, "Nicholas Kwiatkowski" <ni...@spoon.as> wrote:
> I don't see why our binary distributions would be a problem to host
> anywhere... The added stuff the installer downloads -- we can't host
> those, but the binary stuff should be ok.
>
> I know that the people at Spoon have offered to host them. Want me to ping
> them if it becomes a problem?
>
I would like to see Spoon decide whether they want to be this external
entity that fills the gaps with Apache. One concern I have is that the name
Spoon isn't all that meaningful anymore.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Nicholas Kwiatkowski <ni...@spoon.as>.
I don't see why our binary distributions would be a problem to host
anywhere... The added stuff the installer downloads -- we can't host
those, but the binary stuff should be ok.
I know that the people at Spoon have offered to host them. Want me to ping
them if it becomes a problem?
-Nick
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Also keep in mind is that the installer is provided as a convenience for
> SDK users to download the binary kit and all 3rd party required pieces and
> get it working in there IDE with a mimimum of trouble. While supporting
> multiple versions to download etc would be a nice to have feature it's
> certainly not essential IMO as anyone signigificanly motivated enough could
> download and compile previous versions of the SDK from the Apache archive.
>
> Some other Apache projects have people who maintain binary distributions
> for convenience and host them outside of Apache. Although in our case it
> could probably only be hosted at Adobe due to the 3rd party licensing?
> Anyone know if this would be possible?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 1/1/13 3:09 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> Some other Apache projects have people who maintain binary distributions for
> convenience and host them outside of Apache. Although in our case it could
> probably only be hosted at Adobe due to the 3rd party licensing? Anyone know
> if this would be possible?
Actually, in theory, any entity can become an Adobe distributor. You fill
out a form and various business folks at Adobe decide to approve you or not.
I have not tried to make Apache such a distributor as I think it would be
complicated to get Apache to execute a distributor's agreement since Adobe
licensing is not Apache compatible.
If I were to start my own "company" I would seek such a distributors
agreement.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
Also keep in mind is that the installer is provided as a convenience for SDK users to download the binary kit and all 3rd party required pieces and get it working in there IDE with a mimimum of trouble. While supporting multiple versions to download etc would be a nice to have feature it's certainly not essential IMO as anyone signigificanly motivated enough could download and compile previous versions of the SDK from the Apache archive.
Some other Apache projects have people who maintain binary distributions for convenience and host them outside of Apache. Although in our case it could probably only be hosted at Adobe due to the 3rd party licensing? Anyone know if this would be possible?
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
I'm not sure there's a reason to set the Flash Player version for the SDK other than the mimimum version.
The Flash player version can be set on a project by project basis when using an IDE, an SDK compiled for 11.1 can be compiled into a project that uses 11.1 - 11.6.
I'm not tested a SDK compiled for 11.0 or 10.3 or 10.2 can target 11.5 but not sure why you would want to do that.
Knowing what Flash Player is required for other Flash features (workers, stage 3d etc) would be useful.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Nick Collins <nd...@gmail.com>.
Perhaps another useful addition would be to offer a UI similar to what the
AIR Launchpad does, where the user selects the APIs they want to take
advantage of ( workers, Stage3D, etc.) and the application indicates to
them what Flex SDK / AIR SDK / PlayerGlobals are the minimum required, and
will download each and automatically merge them?
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Is there a specific reason why we are targeting FP 11.1 as opposed to
> 11.4 or 11.5?
> To not force people to update Flash Player and change the minimum player
> level the Flex confg file.
>
> The SDK will work with 11.4 and 11.5 but currently uses no 11.4 or 11.5
> features so there no real need to compile for anything only than 11.1.
>
> Perhaps a useful addition to the installer would be to download 11.1
> playerglobal.swc and the latest playerglobal.swc?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Is there a specific reason why we are targeting FP 11.1 as opposed to 11.4 or 11.5?
To not force people to update Flash Player and change the minimum player level the Flex confg file.
The SDK will work with 11.4 and 11.5 but currently uses no 11.4 or 11.5 features so there no real need to compile for anything only than 11.1.
Perhaps a useful addition to the installer would be to download 11.1 playerglobal.swc and the latest playerglobal.swc?
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Nick Collins <nd...@gmail.com>.
Is there a specific reason why we are targeting FP 11.1 as opposed to 11.4
or 11.5?
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 3:29 AM, Om <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The config is not part of the source. There is only a reference to its url
> in the installer app. The installer was designed with this scenario in
> mind.
>
> A copy is included as a convenience to the developer who uses it. In that
> sense it is more like a .properties file.
>
> We need to be able to change the sdk version without having to push an
> update to the installer. Bundling the config xml with the source or binary
> will cause issues .
>
> Thanks,
> Om
> On Jan 1, 2013 12:06 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Apache only officially releases (and we are voting on) a source
> > distribution for the installer.
> > Would a run time loaded config file be really considered part of that
> > source? Basically it's the same as the build.properties for the Flex SDK.
> > While the build.properties is part of the source release kit you
> generally
> > need to edit and change the values in it.
> >
> > The XML file is not compiled into the source it can also be
> changed/edited
> > by the user to install other versions of the SDK or AIR. A "typical"
> > version of it is included in the source (just like build.properties) see
> > "sdk-insaller-config-2.0.xml" in the root src directory.
> >
> > Would you consider the disclaimer page to be part of the source? It's on
> > the wiki and linked to by the application. Or the cgi scipt it uses to
> get
> > the mirror? Where exactly do you draw the line?
> >
> > Either way when a vote is called for it only requires three more +1 than
> > -1 votes and I don't see this as a reason for voting -1.
> >
> > Justin
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> How does the UI handle choosing which version to download?
Currently it downloads the latest Flex version. If it was to download previous version it would need to get them fro the archive and need to be configured with multiple URLs.
I think it was decided not to do this as having 4.9 not having to download TLF and 4.8 did caused complications.
> Justin went to all of this work to allow different player versions. We don't want to lock
> folks down to the latest Flex version.
I assume you mean Flash Player version there. I think there's enough info about if people want to compile or use the the SDK for another Flash Player version. Perhaps the installer could download all playerglobals.swc as a convenience rather than just the 11.1 one?
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 1/1/13 1:29 AM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The config is not part of the source. There is only a reference to its url
> in the installer app. The installer was designed with this scenario in
> mind.
>
> A copy is included as a convenience to the developer who uses it. In that
> sense it is more like a .properties file.
>
> We need to be able to change the sdk version without having to push an
> update to the installer. Bundling the config xml with the source or binary
> will cause issues .
>
First, let me start off with saying that this kind of issue is a pain point
for me as well. Unfortunately, Apache doesn't release just binaries. I
have definitely considered launching my own "company" to handle the stuff
that Apache doesn't do very well, like binary distributions.
AFAIK, the app cannot run without this file. We author it, it lives in our
SVN, etc., so it is source. The definition for binary distro is a compiled
version of the source kit. I don't think you can remove files from the
source distro in making it.
BTW, I'm not very familiar with .htaccess redirects, but I know we have to
clear our builds from the incubator's dist folder when we get our final dist
folder. Would redirects still work for fetching the old incubator release?
How does the UI handle choosing which version to download? Justin went to
all of this work to allow different player versions. We don't want to lock
folks down to the latest Flex version.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Om <bi...@gmail.com>.
The config is not part of the source. There is only a reference to its url
in the installer app. The installer was designed with this scenario in
mind.
A copy is included as a convenience to the developer who uses it. In that
sense it is more like a .properties file.
We need to be able to change the sdk version without having to push an
update to the installer. Bundling the config xml with the source or binary
will cause issues .
Thanks,
Om
On Jan 1, 2013 12:06 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Apache only officially releases (and we are voting on) a source
> distribution for the installer.
> Would a run time loaded config file be really considered part of that
> source? Basically it's the same as the build.properties for the Flex SDK.
> While the build.properties is part of the source release kit you generally
> need to edit and change the values in it.
>
> The XML file is not compiled into the source it can also be changed/edited
> by the user to install other versions of the SDK or AIR. A "typical"
> version of it is included in the source (just like build.properties) see
> "sdk-insaller-config-2.0.xml" in the root src directory.
>
> Would you consider the disclaimer page to be part of the source? It's on
> the wiki and linked to by the application. Or the cgi scipt it uses to get
> the mirror? Where exactly do you draw the line?
>
> Either way when a vote is called for it only requires three more +1 than
> -1 votes and I don't see this as a reason for voting -1.
>
> Justin
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 1/1/13 10:10 PM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 1, 2013 9:49 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/1/13 2:18 PM, "Nicholas Kwiatkowski" <ni...@spoon.as> wrote:
>>
>>> Wouldn't we want to keep the config file on our website / SVN? It
> seems to
>>> me that placing the config file on any of the DISTS would be
> disasterious,
>>> as this contains the MD5 checksum that the app verifies to make sure the
>>> release wasn't tampered by the dist...
>> Interesting point. Anybody know wny we don't fetch the MD5 from the
>> apache.org DIST (sans Mirror as recommended by Apache).
>>
>
> The app is hardcoded to look at the apache site for the MD5 file. We don't
> get it from any mirrors.
Hmm. Then what is Nick's concern here?
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Om <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 1, 2013 9:49 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 1/1/13 2:18 PM, "Nicholas Kwiatkowski" <ni...@spoon.as> wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't we want to keep the config file on our website / SVN? It
seems to
> > me that placing the config file on any of the DISTS would be
disasterious,
> > as this contains the MD5 checksum that the app verifies to make sure the
> > release wasn't tampered by the dist...
> Interesting point. Anybody know wny we don't fetch the MD5 from the
> apache.org DIST (sans Mirror as recommended by Apache).
>
The app is hardcoded to look at the apache site for the MD5 file. We don't
get it from any mirrors.
> --
> Alex Harui
> Flex SDK Team
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 1/1/13 2:18 PM, "Nicholas Kwiatkowski" <ni...@spoon.as> wrote:
> Wouldn't we want to keep the config file on our website / SVN? It seems to
> me that placing the config file on any of the DISTS would be disasterious,
> as this contains the MD5 checksum that the app verifies to make sure the
> release wasn't tampered by the dist...
Interesting point. Anybody know wny we don't fetch the MD5 from the
apache.org DIST (sans Mirror as recommended by Apache).
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Nicholas Kwiatkowski <ni...@spoon.as>.
Wouldn't we want to keep the config file on our website / SVN? It seems to
me that placing the config file on any of the DISTS would be disasterious,
as this contains the MD5 checksum that the app verifies to make sure the
release wasn't tampered by the dist...
What are the thoughts on doing versioning in the config XML? have a
version 1 node, version 2 node, etc. so that the app would look for a
particular node, ignoring the rest of the config (so we can test future
versions, or support old versions without an issue).
-Nick
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >> Would you consider the disclaimer page to be part of the source?
> > The DISCLAIMER file is in the source kit for incubating releases.
> I was referring to the disclaimer link in the application not the
> DISCLAIMER file.
>
> > Source kits are (potentially filtered) dumps of what is in SVN.
> And that correct with the installer, there's a source kit which someone
> can take and compile the application.
>
> > I'm pretty sure Apache regulations would override any vote.
> What "regulation" exactly? Can you point to me page that state that you
> can't load XML files outside of it's SVN trunk?
>
> > This is potentially a legal issue
> What is the legal issue here? The installer will be voted on and
> distributed in the normal Apache Way (apache.org/dist). The XML file is
> also in SVN at svn.apage.org that only Apache committers can access and
> change. The installer will only download official Apache releases that have
> been voted on and placed in apache.org/dist.
>
> I guess worse case a committer could modify the file XML file in SVN to
> download another Apache binary kit but I think we would notice that and fix.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Om <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 2, 2013 8:06 AM, "Carol Frampton" <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/2/13 10 :44AM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 2, 2013 6:37 AM, "Carol Frampton" <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> flex/utilities/trunk/installer/build.properties needs updating
> >>
> >> FLEX_HOME_MAC still points to 4.8.0
> >>
> >>
> >> and FLEX_HOME_WIN points to ApacheFlex4.9.0 (I'm not sure where this
> >>name
> >> comes from but the formatting seems odd - I dislike names with spaces
> >>but
> >> given the rest of the path why not Apache Flex 4.9.0?)
> >>
> >> #Flex Locations
> >> FLEX_HOME_WIN=C:/Program Files (x86)/Adobe/Adobe Flash Builder
> >> 4.6/sdks/ApacheFlex4.9.0/
> >> FLEX_HOME_MAC=/Applications/Adobe Flash Builder 4.6/sdks/4.8.0/
> >>
> >> Carol
> >>
> >
> >That is how I have named the directory for 4.9 on my machine. You are
> >free
> >to name it however you want and update build.properties before running
> >ant. In any case, one cannot guarantee that the path would be same
across
> >computers.
>
> I realize this but what we ship should at least point to 4.9.0 or
> something to that effect so people aren't confused. I do have to set
> FLEX_HOME to build which I don't like to have to do but that is a
> different issue. Source files in svn should not never have something
> particular to one person's machine. I'd prefer to see both paths set to
> 4.9.0 or "Apache Flex 4.9.0".
>
> Carol
>
I don't understand why, but I have no problems if you make this change.
Thanks,
Om
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>.
On 1/2/13 10 :44AM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 2, 2013 6:37 AM, "Carol Frampton" <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>> flex/utilities/trunk/installer/build.properties needs updating
>>
>> FLEX_HOME_MAC still points to 4.8.0
>>
>>
>> and FLEX_HOME_WIN points to ApacheFlex4.9.0 (I'm not sure where this
>>name
>> comes from but the formatting seems odd - I dislike names with spaces
>>but
>> given the rest of the path why not Apache Flex 4.9.0?)
>>
>> #Flex Locations
>> FLEX_HOME_WIN=C:/Program Files (x86)/Adobe/Adobe Flash Builder
>> 4.6/sdks/ApacheFlex4.9.0/
>> FLEX_HOME_MAC=/Applications/Adobe Flash Builder 4.6/sdks/4.8.0/
>>
>> Carol
>>
>
>That is how I have named the directory for 4.9 on my machine. You are
>free
>to name it however you want and update build.properties before running
>ant. In any case, one cannot guarantee that the path would be same across
>computers.
I realize this but what we ship should at least point to 4.9.0 or
something to that effect so people aren't confused. I do have to set
FLEX_HOME to build which I don't like to have to do but that is a
different issue. Source files in svn should not never have something
particular to one person's machine. I'd prefer to see both paths set to
4.9.0 or "Apache Flex 4.9.0".
Carol
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Om <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 2, 2013 6:37 AM, "Carol Frampton" <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> flex/utilities/trunk/installer/build.properties needs updating
>
> FLEX_HOME_MAC still points to 4.8.0
>
>
> and FLEX_HOME_WIN points to ApacheFlex4.9.0 (I'm not sure where this name
> comes from but the formatting seems odd - I dislike names with spaces but
> given the rest of the path why not Apache Flex 4.9.0?)
>
> #Flex Locations
> FLEX_HOME_WIN=C:/Program Files (x86)/Adobe/Adobe Flash Builder
> 4.6/sdks/ApacheFlex4.9.0/
> FLEX_HOME_MAC=/Applications/Adobe Flash Builder 4.6/sdks/4.8.0/
>
> Carol
>
That is how I have named the directory for 4.9 on my machine. You are free
to name it however you want and update build.properties before running
ant. In any case, one cannot guarantee that the path would be same across
computers.
Thanks,
Om
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>.
flex/utilities/trunk/installer/build.properties needs updating
FLEX_HOME_MAC still points to 4.8.0
and FLEX_HOME_WIN points to ApacheFlex4.9.0 (I'm not sure where this name
comes from but the formatting seems odd - I dislike names with spaces but
given the rest of the path why not Apache Flex 4.9.0?)
#Flex Locations
FLEX_HOME_WIN=C:/Program Files (x86)/Adobe/Adobe Flash Builder
4.6/sdks/ApacheFlex4.9.0/
FLEX_HOME_MAC=/Applications/Adobe Flash Builder 4.6/sdks/4.8.0/
Carol
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Om <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 1, 2013 11:44 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 1/1/13 11:30 PM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/1/13 11:09 PM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Jan 1, 2013 10:42 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Ok, here is my logic:
> >>>>
> >>>> -From [1], a release is "anything that is published beyond the group
> >> that
> >>>> owns it.". Putting the config.xml on the site to be consumed by one
of
> >>> our
> >>>> binaries makes it part of a release and requires a vote before it
> >> happens.
> >>>
> >>> I still don't agree with this logic. The config xml is placed on our
> >>> website which is completely under our control. Which means that we
don't
> >>> really 'release' it.
> >> We are taking something from SVN and consuming it in a binary
distribution
> >> that we've deployed to our site and telling the world to use it.
> >>
> >
> > We consume a lot of resources from the website - the flex sdk, the md5,
the
> > mirror url cgi script (which IS code). We dont release any of those in
the
> > source kit for the Installer. How is the config xml any different?
> >
> > We also consume a host of external dependencies like flash player, air
sdk,
> > etc. According to your logic, we cannot do this because we cannot
> > 'release' those files.
> It is in our SVN with the rest of our code and dictates what the code
does.
> None of the other things you listed do both.
>
I don't see these two conditions in the Apache release guide. It is your
interpretation of what it says, which I don't agree with.
In any case, what exactly do you mean by 'dictate'? Please explain how
that makes it source? Why is the mirror cgi script not considered to being
'dictating' the app?
> --
> Alex Harui
> Flex SDK Team
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 1/1/13 11:30 PM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/1/13 11:09 PM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 1, 2013 10:42 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ok, here is my logic:
>>>>
>>>> -From [1], a release is "anything that is published beyond the group
>> that
>>>> owns it.". Putting the config.xml on the site to be consumed by one of
>>> our
>>>> binaries makes it part of a release and requires a vote before it
>> happens.
>>>
>>> I still don't agree with this logic. The config xml is placed on our
>>> website which is completely under our control. Which means that we don't
>>> really 'release' it.
>> We are taking something from SVN and consuming it in a binary distribution
>> that we've deployed to our site and telling the world to use it.
>>
>
> We consume a lot of resources from the website - the flex sdk, the md5, the
> mirror url cgi script (which IS code). We dont release any of those in the
> source kit for the Installer. How is the config xml any different?
>
> We also consume a host of external dependencies like flash player, air sdk,
> etc. According to your logic, we cannot do this because we cannot
> 'release' those files.
It is in our SVN with the rest of our code and dictates what the code does.
None of the other things you listed do both.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Om <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/1/13 11:09 PM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 1, 2013 10:42 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Ok, here is my logic:
> >>
> >> -From [1], a release is "anything that is published beyond the group
> that
> >> owns it.". Putting the config.xml on the site to be consumed by one of
> > our
> >> binaries makes it part of a release and requires a vote before it
> happens.
> >
> > I still don't agree with this logic. The config xml is placed on our
> > website which is completely under our control. Which means that we don't
> > really 'release' it.
> We are taking something from SVN and consuming it in a binary distribution
> that we've deployed to our site and telling the world to use it.
>
We consume a lot of resources from the website - the flex sdk, the md5, the
mirror url cgi script (which IS code). We dont release any of those in the
source kit for the Installer. How is the config xml any different?
We also consume a host of external dependencies like flash player, air sdk,
etc. According to your logic, we cannot do this because we cannot
'release' those files.
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Om <bi...@gmail.com>.
>
> > We don't 'release' the installer badge, but it consumes the same exact
> > config xml. Are you saying that we need to release the source for the
> > badge as well?
> IMO, absolutely. Did we not do this in the prior version? Then we really
> messed up that release. I thought the same source created the badge
> installer, but it got packaged differently before posting on the site.
>
>
We discussed this in the past and decided not to officially release the
badge. It was also decided to include a link to this disclaimer [1] in the
badge
[1] http://incubator.apache.org/flex/installerbadge/disclaimer.html
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
HI,
> We are taking something from SVN and consuming it in a binary distribution
> that we've deployed to our site and telling the world to use it.
Not exactly it is optional - it's only used if you don't specify a config file via the command line.
> But in this case, there is code involved
It's an XML file not code, it's just a configuration file. It there for convenience. I assume it could be removed and all the values hard coded/backing into the binary release but that's not really optimal.
> But I would love to be overruled by the mentors or board.
If any mentors are reading this I like your option on this.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 1/1/13 11:09 PM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 1, 2013 10:42 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>> Ok, here is my logic:
>>
>> -From [1], a release is "anything that is published beyond the group that
>> owns it.". Putting the config.xml on the site to be consumed by one of
> our
>> binaries makes it part of a release and requires a vote before it happens.
>
> I still don't agree with this logic. The config xml is placed on our
> website which is completely under our control. Which means that we don't
> really 'release' it.
We are taking something from SVN and consuming it in a binary distribution
that we've deployed to our site and telling the world to use it.
Believe me, I've puzzled over why other web-site changes aren't also
considered 'releases' and need voting. I think it is because there is no
code involved. But in this case, there is code involved, whether it is the
installer launched from our web-page or by the user downloading the
installer.
But I would love to be overruled by the mentors or board. I am taking the
most conservative read of the policy because I see that as the safest play
for now. I know it is delaying things, but all of us PMC members have a
priority to make sure we are following Apache policy.
>
> We don't 'release' the installer badge, but it consumes the same exact
> config xml. Are you saying that we need to release the source for the
> badge as well?
IMO, absolutely. Did we not do this in the prior version? Then we really
messed up that release. I thought the same source created the badge
installer, but it got packaged differently before posting on the site.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Om <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 1, 2013 10:42 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> Ok, here is my logic:
>
> -From [1], a release is "anything that is published beyond the group that
> owns it.". Putting the config.xml on the site to be consumed by one of
our
> binaries makes it part of a release and requires a vote before it happens.
I still don't agree with this logic. The config xml is placed on our
website which is completely under our control. Which means that we don't
really 'release' it.
We don't 'release' the installer badge, but it consumes the same exact
config xml. Are you saying that we need to release the source for the
badge as well?
> -Also from [1], " All releases are in the form of the source materials
> needed to make changes to the software being released.". The config file
> gets changed with each release and therefore IMO it is considered source
> materials even though it is not source code.
Not necessarily. We can ship Installer 3.0 with only UI improvements. No
need to update the config xml in that case.
> -From [2], "The role of the PMC from a Foundation perspective is
oversight.
> The main role of the PMC is not code and not coding - but to ensure that
all
> legal issues are addressed, that procedure is followed, and that each and
> every release is the product of the community as a whole. That is key to
our
> litigation protection mechanisms." and later "However those on the PMC are
> kept to a higher standard. As the PMC, and the chair in particular, are
eyes
> and ears of the ASF Board, it is you that we rely on and need to trust to
> provide legal oversight. The board has the faculty to terminate a PMC at
> any time by resolution." As much as we want to get this release out the
> door, the fact is it is more important to make sure we are following
policy.
>
> It is unfortunate that various logistical issues have prevented us from
> getting our final dist folder. But here we are and we have to work with
> Apache policy.
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release#what
> [2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc
>
>
> On 1/1/13 1:44 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >>> Would you consider the disclaimer page to be part of the source?
> >> The DISCLAIMER file is in the source kit for incubating releases.
> > I was referring to the disclaimer link in the application not the
DISCLAIMER
> > file.
> I don't think it is an issue if we pull up existing web pages, but IMO it
is
> an issue to be publishing source materials on the site without a vote.
> >
> >> Source kits are (potentially filtered) dumps of what is in SVN.
> > And that correct with the installer, there's a source kit which someone
can
> > take and compile the application.
> >
> >> I'm pretty sure Apache regulations would override any vote.
> > What "regulation" exactly? Can you point to me page that state that you
can't
> > load XML files outside of it's SVN trunk?
> >
> >> This is potentially a legal issue
> > What is the legal issue here? The installer will be voted on and
distributed
> > in the normal Apache Way (apache.org/dist). The XML file is also in SVN
at
> > svn.apage.org that only Apache committers can access and change. The
installer
> > will only download official Apache releases that have been voted on and
placed
> > in apache.org/dist.
> >
> > I guess worse case a committer could modify the file XML file in SVN to
> > download another Apache binary kit but I think we would notice that and
fix.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> >
>
> --
> Alex Harui
> Flex SDK Team
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 1/1/13 11:16 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> -From [1], a release is "anything that is published beyond the group that
>> owns it.". Putting the config.xml on the site to be consumed by one of our
>> binaries makes it part of a release and requires a vote before it happens.
> It published on the Flex web site by Flex committers give access by the ASF
> I'd read that as not being "beyond the group". Or are you saying we need to
> vote every time we make a change to the web site or wiki?
I mentioned in another reply that there seems to be different rules for
web-site content. But this is a file consumed by code.
>
>> -Also from [1], " All releases are in the form of the source materials
>> needed to make changes to the software being released."
> Everything is contained in the source and anyone can download and build the
> installer so that is covered as well.
>
> I would agree there would the issue if any file was owned or hosted by a 3rd
> party. This is not the case,
Right, but the config.xml is part of this kit isn't it? If not it should be
and then IMO, posting it on the site could be construed to be a "release".
>
>> -From [2], "The role of the PMC from a Foundation perspective is oversight.
>> The main role of the PMC is not code and not coding - but to ensure that all
>> legal issues are addressed, that procedure is followed, and that each and
>> every release is the product of the community as a whole.
> This installer is the product of the community I don't see how anyone could
> claim otherwise so again I don't believe there is an issue here either.
Because I think we have released a source material file (the config.xml)
without a vote. I looked: it is there on incubator/flex now.
>
>> As much as we want to get this release out the door, the fact is it is more
>> important to make sure we are following policy.
>
> We are following policy the installer will be put up for a vote and released
> in the normal way.
>
> If you really think that the above is the case then I can't see how we will
> ever be able to release the installer or even make the 4.9 release
> announcement and having a 2 or 3 vote process is just too much to ask of most
> committers limited time. I see the only options are, unles syou have a better
> idea, is to remove the installer out of Apache or abandon it and insist that
> users compile the SDK from scratch.
I think longer term Dave Fisher had some good ideas. The list of
dependencies should be in the SDK. The list of SDKs and their URLs should
be in a file relative to the installer. Or could we get the list by hitting
the dist folder and archive folder via HTTP and parsing the result to see
what is in it?
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> -From [1], a release is "anything that is published beyond the group that
> owns it.". Putting the config.xml on the site to be consumed by one of our
> binaries makes it part of a release and requires a vote before it happens.
It published on the Flex web site by Flex committers give access by the ASF I'd read that as not being "beyond the group". Or are you saying we need to vote every time we make a change to the web site or wiki?
> -Also from [1], " All releases are in the form of the source materials
> needed to make changes to the software being released."
Everything is contained in the source and anyone can download and build the installer so that is covered as well.
I would agree there would the issue if any file was owned or hosted by a 3rd party. This is not the case,
> -From [2], "The role of the PMC from a Foundation perspective is oversight.
> The main role of the PMC is not code and not coding - but to ensure that all
> legal issues are addressed, that procedure is followed, and that each and
> every release is the product of the community as a whole.
This installer is the product of the community I don't see how anyone could claim otherwise so again I don't believe there is an issue here either.
> As much as we want to get this release out the door, the fact is it is more important to make sure we are following policy.
We are following policy the installer will be put up for a vote and released in the normal way.
If you really think that the above is the case then I can't see how we will ever be able to release the installer or even make the 4.9 release announcement and having a 2 or 3 vote process is just too much to ask of most committers limited time. I see the only options are, unles syou have a better idea, is to remove the installer out of Apache or abandon it and insist that users compile the SDK from scratch.
Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Ok, here is my logic:
-From [1], a release is "anything that is published beyond the group that
owns it.". Putting the config.xml on the site to be consumed by one of our
binaries makes it part of a release and requires a vote before it happens.
-Also from [1], " All releases are in the form of the source materials
needed to make changes to the software being released.". The config file
gets changed with each release and therefore IMO it is considered source
materials even though it is not source code.
-From [2], "The role of the PMC from a Foundation perspective is oversight.
The main role of the PMC is not code and not coding - but to ensure that all
legal issues are addressed, that procedure is followed, and that each and
every release is the product of the community as a whole. That is key to our
litigation protection mechanisms." and later "However those on the PMC are
kept to a higher standard. As the PMC, and the chair in particular, are eyes
and ears of the ASF Board, it is you that we rely on and need to trust to
provide legal oversight. The board has the faculty to terminate a PMC at
any time by resolution." As much as we want to get this release out the
door, the fact is it is more important to make sure we are following policy.
It is unfortunate that various logistical issues have prevented us from
getting our final dist folder. But here we are and we have to work with
Apache policy.
[1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release#what
[2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc
On 1/1/13 1:44 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>> Would you consider the disclaimer page to be part of the source?
>> The DISCLAIMER file is in the source kit for incubating releases.
> I was referring to the disclaimer link in the application not the DISCLAIMER
> file.
I don't think it is an issue if we pull up existing web pages, but IMO it is
an issue to be publishing source materials on the site without a vote.
>
>> Source kits are (potentially filtered) dumps of what is in SVN.
> And that correct with the installer, there's a source kit which someone can
> take and compile the application.
>
>> I'm pretty sure Apache regulations would override any vote.
> What "regulation" exactly? Can you point to me page that state that you can't
> load XML files outside of it's SVN trunk?
>
>> This is potentially a legal issue
> What is the legal issue here? The installer will be voted on and distributed
> in the normal Apache Way (apache.org/dist). The XML file is also in SVN at
> svn.apage.org that only Apache committers can access and change. The installer
> will only download official Apache releases that have been voted on and placed
> in apache.org/dist.
>
> I guess worse case a committer could modify the file XML file in SVN to
> download another Apache binary kit but I think we would notice that and fix.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
>> Would you consider the disclaimer page to be part of the source?
> The DISCLAIMER file is in the source kit for incubating releases.
I was referring to the disclaimer link in the application not the DISCLAIMER file.
> Source kits are (potentially filtered) dumps of what is in SVN.
And that correct with the installer, there's a source kit which someone can take and compile the application.
> I'm pretty sure Apache regulations would override any vote.
What "regulation" exactly? Can you point to me page that state that you can't load XML files outside of it's SVN trunk?
> This is potentially a legal issue
What is the legal issue here? The installer will be voted on and distributed in the normal Apache Way (apache.org/dist). The XML file is also in SVN at svn.apage.org that only Apache committers can access and change. The installer will only download official Apache releases that have been voted on and placed in apache.org/dist.
I guess worse case a committer could modify the file XML file in SVN to download another Apache binary kit but I think we would notice that and fix.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 1/1/13 12:05 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Apache only officially releases (and we are voting on) a source distribution
>> for the installer.
> Would a run time loaded config file be really considered part of that source?
> Basically it's the same as the build.properties for the Flex SDK. While the
> build.properties is part of the source release kit you generally need to edit
> and change the values in it.
Build.properties is compile-time.
>
> The XML file is not compiled into the source it can also be changed/edited by
> the user to install other versions of the SDK or AIR. A "typical" version of
> it is included in the source (just like build.properties) see
> "sdk-insaller-config-2.0.xml" in the root src directory.
>
> Would you consider the disclaimer page to be part of the source?
The DISCLAIMER file is in the source kit for incubating releases.
> It's on the
> wiki and linked to by the application. Or the cgi scipt it uses to get the
> mirror? Where exactly do you draw the line?
Source kits are (potentially filtered) dumps of what is in SVN.
>
> Either way when a vote is called for it only requires three more +1 than -1
> votes and I don't see this as a reason for voting -1.
I'm pretty sure Apache regulations would override any vote. This is
potentially a legal issue, so we have to get this right. I will do more
research on the definitions of what is source. Hopefully our mentors will
provide guidance as well.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Apache only officially releases (and we are voting on) a source distribution for the installer.
Would a run time loaded config file be really considered part of that source? Basically it's the same as the build.properties for the Flex SDK. While the build.properties is part of the source release kit you generally need to edit and change the values in it.
The XML file is not compiled into the source it can also be changed/edited by the user to install other versions of the SDK or AIR. A "typical" version of it is included in the source (just like build.properties) see "sdk-insaller-config-2.0.xml" in the root src directory.
Would you consider the disclaimer page to be part of the source? It's on the wiki and linked to by the application. Or the cgi scipt it uses to get the mirror? Where exactly do you draw the line?
Either way when a vote is called for it only requires three more +1 than -1 votes and I don't see this as a reason for voting -1.
Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 12/31/12 10:42 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> HI,
>
>> Can we actually release this source if we don't have it pointing to the
>> final dist folder for 4.9?
> I think we can and that's not an issue.
>
> Only the XML file would need to change which in not in the installer
> directory.
> http://incubator.apache.org/flex/sdk-installer-config-2.0.xml
Isn't that file in the source kit?
>
> The installer would not need to be recompiled so no vote would be required
> IMO.
Apache only officially releases (and we are voting on) a source distribution
for the installer. IMO, the .xml file should be in the source kit and if we
don't have a final version then we aren't ready to vote.
The binary kit should probably have the .xml file as well since it is
supposed to be a compiled version of the source distribution?
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
HI,
> Can we actually release this source if we don't have it pointing to the
> final dist folder for 4.9?
I think we can and that's not an issue.
Only the XML file would need to change which in not in the installer directory.
http://incubator.apache.org/flex/sdk-installer-config-2.0.xml
The installer would not need to be recompiled so no vote would be required IMO.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 12/31/12 10:23 PM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please take it for a spin and let us know your feedback. We would like to
> put up a vote asap and release this right away!
>
Can we actually release this source if we don't have it pointing to the
final dist folder for 4.9?
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui