You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> on 2014/02/25 02:58:05 UTC
[VOTE] Apache Flex 4.12.0 RC 2
Hi,
This is a Apache Flex 4.12.0 release candidate 2 . Please see the RELEASE_NOTES and the README.
There is a known bug in Adobe Flash Builder 4.6 and 4.7 that causes a issue when creating new applications.
Adobe has provided a work around for FB 4.7 but not for 4.6.
The release candidate can be found here;
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/sdk/4.12.0/rc2/
Before voting please review the section,"What are the ASF requirements on approving a release?", at:
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
At a minimum you would be expected to check that:
- MD5 and signed packages are correct
- README, RELEASE_NOTES, NOTICE and LICENSE files are all fine
- That you can compile from source package
- That the SDK can be used in your IDE of choice
- That the SDK can be used to make a mobile, desktop and browser application
When testing please check the md5 and asc files and make sure that the source can be compiled.
Please vote to approve this release:
+1 Approve the release
-1 Veto the release (please provide specific comments to why)
This vote will be open for 72 hours or until a result can be called.
The vote passes if there is:
- At least 3 +1 votes from the PMC
- More positive votes than negative votes
If you find an issue with the release that's a "show stopper" please don't hold off voting -1. If someone votes -1 please continue testing we want to try and catch as many issues as we can and cut down on the number of release candidates. Remember existing voters can change their vote during the voting process.
People who are not in PMC are also encouraged to test out the release and vote, although their votes will not be binding, they can influence how the PMC votes.
When voting please indicate what OS, IDE, Flash Player version and AIR version you tested the SDK with.
Please put all discussion about this release in the DISCUSSION thread not this VOTE thread.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [VOTE] Apache Flex 4.12.0 RC 2
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
>
> So, technically, I think I have to vote -1 because we need another RC with
>
My thoughts exactly.
EdB
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [VOTE] Apache Flex 4.12.0 RC 2
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Yeah. That worries me. What worries me more is that people vote +1 when the
> Mustella tests are failing.
RC2 is not going to become a release, but the +1 are encouraging that there are no other issues. Even if we did release it would have fewer bugs that the previous released version of Apache Flex, it's just that a bug (now fixed) happened to break a few tests. There are quite a few unresolved bugs that don't break tests but that doesn't stop us from releasing a new version.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [VOTE] Apache Flex 4.12.0 RC 2
Posted by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>.
To allay Erik's concerns, I am not planning on carrying over my vote. I
will do a full test of RC3. Of course, I wont be able to run Mustella
myself, because I like my computer and I would like to continue to use it
;-) I am relying on the VMs to run Mustella for us.
Thanks,
Om
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 5:34 AM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Should no failing tests by a requirement for even starting the vote then
> ?
> There was no failing tests when RC2 was created, the time tag between
> committing and the time the mustella tests hung (eg no error were reported
> in the usual 8 or 9 hours it takes to run the tests) meant I thought all
> was fine to make the RC.
>
> Also extra collection unit tests were run and also showed no errors and
> all the standard collection test pass. it's an issue that only happens to
> be triggered by some tests. It may even be that the test are sensitive to
> timing or other issue but I've not had time to investigate exactly why they
> failed. If there was an issue with collections I'd expect a few more tests
> to fail than actually did.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
Re: [VOTE] Apache Flex 4.12.0 RC 2
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Should no failing tests by a requirement for even starting the vote then ?
There was no failing tests when RC2 was created, the time tag between committing and the time the mustella tests hung (eg no error were reported in the usual 8 or 9 hours it takes to run the tests) meant I thought all was fine to make the RC.
Also extra collection unit tests were run and also showed no errors and all the standard collection test pass. it's an issue that only happens to be triggered by some tests. It may even be that the test are sensitive to timing or other issue but I've not had time to investigate exactly why they failed. If there was an issue with collections I'd expect a few more tests to fail than actually did.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [VOTE] Apache Flex 4.12.0 RC 2
Posted by Tom Chiverton <tc...@extravision.com>.
On 27/02/2014 12:40, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> Yeah. That worries me. What worries me more is that people vote +1 when the
> Mustella tests are failing.
Should no failing tests by a requirement for even starting the vote then ?
Tom
Re: [VOTE] Apache Flex 4.12.0 RC 2
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
>
> I don't see any issue here.
>
Yeah. That worries me. What worries me more is that people vote +1 when the
Mustella tests are failing. And what worries me even more is that people
keep on voting +1 on an what is clearly not a valid RC anymore.
Guess all that just makes me a worrier. Carry on.
EdB
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [VOTE] Apache Flex 4.12.0 RC 2
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> change their vote at any time I don't see any issue here.
For instance (IMO) would be fine when a new RC is out and you voted +1 on the previous one "+0 until I retest this" or "+0 sorry I don't have time to test can someone else lend a hand".
Justin
Re: [VOTE] Apache Flex 4.12.0 RC 2
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> I thought the votes carrying over was meant to allow for expedited release
> of a new RC if only minimal changes were made against the previous one,
> like README changes or simple configs?
The changes are minimal - one line of code and the tests now pass and anyone can change their vote at any time I don't see any issue here.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [VOTE] Apache Flex 4.12.0 RC 2
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@codeoscopic.com>.
Hi,
although is a -1, I can't see nothing bad in my experience and mine is +1
(not binding)
I'm on MacBookPro (2011), 2,3GHz, i7, 8Gb, Mavericks 10.9.2
Only notice a small point when run addAIRtoSDK.sh with the text saying:
Unknown version of AIR. Versions 2.6, 2.7, 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5,
3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9 and 4.0 are supported.
maybe 4.0 should be 13.0 (or 13.0 beta), right?
2014-02-27 12:58 GMT+01:00 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>:
> I thought the votes carrying over was meant to allow for expedited release
> of a new RC if only minimal changes were made against the previous one,
> like README changes or simple configs?
>
> Are you saying you will carry over +1s when there were changes made to the
> RC that caused Mustella failures, which were subsequently fixed, after
> which even more changes were made? That seems wrong... Can you explain what
> type of changes between RCs you think warrant the nixing of previous votes
> and require new votes from scratch?
>
> For now, to help stop a new RC from immediately becoming a release if there
> were enough +1 votes for the previous, broken, RC:
>
> -1 (binding)
>
> EdB
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Yes we will need a RC3, but people's +1 votes will carry over and all
> > feedback is good as it may reduce the need for an RC4.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ix Multimedia Software
>
> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> 3521 VB Utrecht
>
> T. 06-51952295
> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>
--
Carlos Rovira
Director de Tecnología
M: +34 607 22 60 05
F: +34 912 94 80 80
http://www.codeoscopic.com
http://www.directwriter.es
http://www.avant2.es
Re: [VOTE] Apache Flex 4.12.0 RC 2
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
I thought the votes carrying over was meant to allow for expedited release
of a new RC if only minimal changes were made against the previous one,
like README changes or simple configs?
Are you saying you will carry over +1s when there were changes made to the
RC that caused Mustella failures, which were subsequently fixed, after
which even more changes were made? That seems wrong... Can you explain what
type of changes between RCs you think warrant the nixing of previous votes
and require new votes from scratch?
For now, to help stop a new RC from immediately becoming a release if there
were enough +1 votes for the previous, broken, RC:
-1 (binding)
EdB
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Yes we will need a RC3, but people's +1 votes will carry over and all
> feedback is good as it may reduce the need for an RC4.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [VOTE] Apache Flex 4.12.0 RC 2
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
Yes we will need a RC3, but people's +1 votes will carry over and all feedback is good as it may reduce the need for an RC4.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [VOTE] Apache Flex 4.12.0 RC 2
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Things are looking pretty good. Mustella mostly passed on Windows with
FP11.1. Does RC2 have a known issue with the collections tests or did I
not set up my configuration correctly.
I made some tweaks to the README. I noticed we mentioned FP13 in one
section, but not in a later table of swfversions. Should that get fixed?
So, technically, I think I have to vote -1 because we need another RC with
the install script fix for flex-config.xml, and maybe this collections fix
but otherwise I'd say things are good to go.
-Alex
On 2/26/14 2:49 PM, "Mark Kessler" <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>+1
>
>*using*:
>-Win7 x64
>-us_en
>-playerglobal 12.0
>-Air 4.0
>-Java 1.7
>
>
>*SDK Source*:
>-Successful build of sdk.
>-Successful run checkintests.
>-Successful build rsls.
>-README, NOTICE, RELEASE_NOTES, LICENSE files look ok.
>-Successfuly tested simple spark application compiled with sdk.
>-Successfully tested simple air application compiled with sdk.
>
>*SDK Binaries*:
>-Successfuly tested simple spark application compiled with sdk.
>
>
>-Mark
>
>
>On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Justin Mclean
><ju...@classsoftware.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is a Apache Flex 4.12.0 release candidate 2 . Please see the
>> RELEASE_NOTES and the README.
>>
>> There is a known bug in Adobe Flash Builder 4.6 and 4.7 that causes a
>> issue when creating new applications.
>> Adobe has provided a work around for FB 4.7 but not for 4.6.
>>
>> The release candidate can be found here;
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/sdk/4.12.0/rc2/
>>
>> Before voting please review the section,"What are the ASF requirements
>>on
>> approving a release?", at:
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
>>
>> At a minimum you would be expected to check that:
>> - MD5 and signed packages are correct
>> - README, RELEASE_NOTES, NOTICE and LICENSE files are all fine
>> - That you can compile from source package
>> - That the SDK can be used in your IDE of choice
>> - That the SDK can be used to make a mobile, desktop and browser
>> application
>>
>> When testing please check the md5 and asc files and make sure that the
>> source can be compiled.
>>
>> Please vote to approve this release:
>> +1 Approve the release
>> -1 Veto the release (please provide specific comments to why)
>>
>> This vote will be open for 72 hours or until a result can be called.
>>
>> The vote passes if there is:
>> - At least 3 +1 votes from the PMC
>> - More positive votes than negative votes
>>
>> If you find an issue with the release that's a "show stopper" please
>>don't
>> hold off voting -1. If someone votes -1 please continue testing we want
>>to
>> try and catch as many issues as we can and cut down on the number of
>> release candidates. Remember existing voters can change their vote
>>during
>> the voting process.
>>
>> People who are not in PMC are also encouraged to test out the release
>>and
>> vote, although their votes will not be binding, they can influence how
>>the
>> PMC votes.
>>
>> When voting please indicate what OS, IDE, Flash Player version and AIR
>> version you tested the SDK with.
>>
>> Please put all discussion about this release in the DISCUSSION thread
>>not
>> this VOTE thread.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
Re: [VOTE] Apache Flex 4.12.0 RC 2
Posted by Mark Kessler <ke...@gmail.com>.
+1
*using*:
-Win7 x64
-us_en
-playerglobal 12.0
-Air 4.0
-Java 1.7
*SDK Source*:
-Successful build of sdk.
-Successful run checkintests.
-Successful build rsls.
-README, NOTICE, RELEASE_NOTES, LICENSE files look ok.
-Successfuly tested simple spark application compiled with sdk.
-Successfully tested simple air application compiled with sdk.
*SDK Binaries*:
-Successfuly tested simple spark application compiled with sdk.
-Mark
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is a Apache Flex 4.12.0 release candidate 2 . Please see the
> RELEASE_NOTES and the README.
>
> There is a known bug in Adobe Flash Builder 4.6 and 4.7 that causes a
> issue when creating new applications.
> Adobe has provided a work around for FB 4.7 but not for 4.6.
>
> The release candidate can be found here;
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/sdk/4.12.0/rc2/
>
> Before voting please review the section,"What are the ASF requirements on
> approving a release?", at:
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
>
> At a minimum you would be expected to check that:
> - MD5 and signed packages are correct
> - README, RELEASE_NOTES, NOTICE and LICENSE files are all fine
> - That you can compile from source package
> - That the SDK can be used in your IDE of choice
> - That the SDK can be used to make a mobile, desktop and browser
> application
>
> When testing please check the md5 and asc files and make sure that the
> source can be compiled.
>
> Please vote to approve this release:
> +1 Approve the release
> -1 Veto the release (please provide specific comments to why)
>
> This vote will be open for 72 hours or until a result can be called.
>
> The vote passes if there is:
> - At least 3 +1 votes from the PMC
> - More positive votes than negative votes
>
> If you find an issue with the release that's a "show stopper" please don't
> hold off voting -1. If someone votes -1 please continue testing we want to
> try and catch as many issues as we can and cut down on the number of
> release candidates. Remember existing voters can change their vote during
> the voting process.
>
> People who are not in PMC are also encouraged to test out the release and
> vote, although their votes will not be binding, they can influence how the
> PMC votes.
>
> When voting please indicate what OS, IDE, Flash Player version and AIR
> version you tested the SDK with.
>
> Please put all discussion about this release in the DISCUSSION thread not
> this VOTE thread.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
Re: [VOTE] Apache Flex 4.12.0 RC 2
Posted by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>.
+1 (Binding)
Tested on Windows 7, 64-bit, JDK 1.7.0, Flash Builder 4.7
README, NOTICE and LICENSE looks good.
Provided feedback on RELEASE_NOTES in [DISCUSS] thread.
Source kit:
MD5 checksum matches.
ASC signature verified (Good signature from "Justin Mclean <
jmclean@apache.org>")
Building from source (ant main) works fine.
Binary kit
MD5 checksum matches.
ASC signature verified (Good signature from "Justin Mclean <
jmclean@apache.org>")
With Installer:
Downloaded RC2 and installed without errors
With Flash Builder
Imported into FB without problems.
Compiled my large web/mobile project without errors. Apps run fine.
Thanks,
Om
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is a Apache Flex 4.12.0 release candidate 2 . Please see the
> RELEASE_NOTES and the README.
>
> There is a known bug in Adobe Flash Builder 4.6 and 4.7 that causes a
> issue when creating new applications.
> Adobe has provided a work around for FB 4.7 but not for 4.6.
>
> The release candidate can be found here;
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/sdk/4.12.0/rc2/
>
> Before voting please review the section,"What are the ASF requirements on
> approving a release?", at:
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
>
> At a minimum you would be expected to check that:
> - MD5 and signed packages are correct
> - README, RELEASE_NOTES, NOTICE and LICENSE files are all fine
> - That you can compile from source package
> - That the SDK can be used in your IDE of choice
> - That the SDK can be used to make a mobile, desktop and browser
> application
>
> When testing please check the md5 and asc files and make sure that the
> source can be compiled.
>
> Please vote to approve this release:
> +1 Approve the release
> -1 Veto the release (please provide specific comments to why)
>
> This vote will be open for 72 hours or until a result can be called.
>
> The vote passes if there is:
> - At least 3 +1 votes from the PMC
> - More positive votes than negative votes
>
> If you find an issue with the release that's a "show stopper" please don't
> hold off voting -1. If someone votes -1 please continue testing we want to
> try and catch as many issues as we can and cut down on the number of
> release candidates. Remember existing voters can change their vote during
> the voting process.
>
> People who are not in PMC are also encouraged to test out the release and
> vote, although their votes will not be binding, they can influence how the
> PMC votes.
>
> When voting please indicate what OS, IDE, Flash Player version and AIR
> version you tested the SDK with.
>
> Please put all discussion about this release in the DISCUSSION thread not
> this VOTE thread.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin