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 2013/07/23 09:45:34 UTC
[DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 3
Hi,
Any issues or questions about Apache Flex 4.10 RC3 please place in this thread.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
No issue as far as I can see - just tried it on a build/SDK post Apache Flex 4.10.
git sttaus
# On branch release4.10.0
# Changes not staged for commit:
#
# modified: flex-sdk-description.xml
# modified: frameworks/air-config.xml
# modified: frameworks/airmobile-config.xml
git pull
Already up-to-date.
But may be issues I'm unaware of.
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Frédéric THOMAS <we...@hotmail.com>.
A while back, we had a talk on it [1] and IIRC, I brought this point to the
list because after a build I had generated files in my working tree and
wasn't able to git pull because my working tree was dirty.
-Fred
[1] http://markmail.org/thread/hzwn5pzp2ivkknmq
-----Message d'origine-----
From: Justin Mclean
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:41 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 3
Hi,
> can't see the point for the flex-sdk-description.xml, can you develop ?
1. The file is packages into the source and binary artefacts. All files in
the release artefacts should be under proper version control. I don't know
if there's any Apache ruling on this but it seems common sense to me.
2. We need to be able to tag the tree that contains the source as released.
Previosly the wrong version of the file was tagged.
3. It's good to see differences so you know what changed, in this case if
the version number was incorrectly injected you would see the issue, with
the file in gitignore you are less likely to see any issues.
What's the reason for having it in gitignore?
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> can't see the point for the flex-sdk-description.xml, can you develop ?
1. The file is packages into the source and binary artefacts. All files in the release artefacts should be under proper version control. I don't know if there's any Apache ruling on this but it seems common sense to me.
2. We need to be able to tag the tree that contains the source as released. Previosly the wrong version of the file was tagged.
3. It's good to see differences so you know what changed, in this case if the version number was incorrectly injected you would see the issue, with the file in gitignore you are less likely to see any issues.
What's the reason for having it in gitignore?
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Frédéric THOMAS <we...@hotmail.com>.
Hum, yes, I can see what you mean for the air*-config..xml because they were
existing in the develop branch and were ignored by git but can't see the
point for the flex-sdk-description.xml, can you develop ?
-----Message d'origine-----
From: Justin Mclean
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 7:57 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 3
Hi,
> Is there a specific reason why the flex-sdk-decription.xml has been
> removed again from the .gitignore,
Yes it's part of the source release so we need to see changes to it. There
were a few other files that were also in gitignore like the air config
files. Having those files is gtignore caused an issue with Apache Flex 4.10
RC2. See the discussion on {airHome}.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Is there a specific reason why the flex-sdk-decription.xml has been removed again from the .gitignore,
Yes it's part of the source release so we need to see changes to it. There were a few other files that were also in gitignore like the air config files. Having those files is gtignore caused an issue with Apache Flex 4.10 RC2. See the discussion on {airHome}.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Frédéric THOMAS <we...@hotmail.com>.
Hi Justin,
Is there a specific reason why the flex-sdk-decription.xml has been removed
again from the .gitignore, it appears now in the root of this tagged version
and the release4.10.0 branch [1] ?
IIRC, the flex-sdk-decription.xml is generated at build time, so, AFAIK,
there's no need to version it.
I didn't follow in detail since a while so maybe something has changed in
between relative to the flex-sdk-decription.xml.
Thanks,
-Fred
[1]
https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/~br=release4.10.0/flex-sdk/flex-sdk-description.xml?r=c87ad9fd4a72f211df0a963aca7356735b241148
-----Message d'origine-----
From: Justin Mclean
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 9:45 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 3
Hi,
Any issues or questions about Apache Flex 4.10 RC3 please place in this
thread.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
>> G. Thanks for using Apache Flex. Enjoy! would be better expressed as:
>> The team that has produced
>> this release hopes you will enjoy using it for your application
>> requirements.
> I quite like what there - any other opinions on this?
Yes, leave it there. It brings a light touch at the end of a very
technical and detail oriented document.
EdB
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> One of the things I like about FlashDevelop is you do not have to move files around or run scripts on your sdk...
So the install instructions are likely to be different and require README changes?
Thanks,
Justin
RE: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Kessler CTR Mark J <ma...@usmc.mil>.
One of the things I like about FlashDevelop is you do not have to move files around or run scripts on your sdk... just add the SDK to your installed SDK list. Can have multiple SDK's setup at once.
-Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Justin Mclean [mailto:justin@classsoftware.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:09 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 3
Hi,
Thanks for the feedback glad to see someone is paying attention :-) I'll leave it up to other people to decide if these changes require another release candidate or not, or can wait until the next release.
> A. As someone noted the other day, FlashDevelop is an excellent tool
> and an open source project which has been very loyal to Flex. Please add
> them to your list of favorite IDEs.
Do we know that the packing scripts work for FlashDevelop? I have no experience with FlashDevelop, but happy to put it in there if we know it works correctly.
> B. The statements concerning OM's installer are redundant after so
> many cut-n-pastes. The marketing person should rewrite sections "Getting
> the Convenience" and "Getting the Latest".
As an Apache release we must release the source code and give instructions on how to build it from scratch. Not everyone will want to do that that why we made the installer. Those section may need a minor edit but they basically need to stay as they are.
> C. "Flex would like to see. support from community" s/b "support
> from the community."
Fixed.
> D. Install prerequisites, para 7"" "Not that if you change" s/b "Note
> that if you change."
Fixed.
> E. Version Support gives an example of how to compile against "the
> latest version", but uses
> an example left over from 11.5 -- change it to say 11.8.
Done.
> F. Using the Binary Distribution -- I know this is a subsection of
> building from source, but it is just
> talking about how to download 3rd-party files. Is that really a step that
> one would still take when it is so
> much more easily accomplished with OM's installer?
Yes it's required due to the way Apache releases software. However not many people are going to take that route when you have the installer.
> G. Thanks for using Apache Flex. Enjoy! would be better expressed as:
> The team that has produced
> this release hopes you will enjoy using it for your application
> requirements.
I quite like what there - any other opinions on this?
> A. Version Control. " build instructions, in the included" s/b
> "build instructions are included in the
> README file."
Done.
> 03. ASDocs. Houston, we have a problem.
These components are in the experimental swc and as such may be missing full tests and documentation. Over time it's hoped that people will contribute what's missing and they be moved into one of the other swf packages.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
Yes, gmail plain ignores anything between square brackets when it
decides what is or isn't a thread. So, in the future, we might want to
have a little difference between the subjects OUTSIDE the square
brackets (like Om did in his reply, he added two asterisks to the
subject, that worked in Gmail).
EdB
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> HI,
>
>> This is marked as [VOTE], isn't it? so this is the place to vote.
> Nope sorry, subject line is "Re [DiSCUSSION]" - perhaps gmail (if you use it) is confused again?
>
> Justin
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
HI,
> This is marked as [VOTE], isn't it? so this is the place to vote.
Nope sorry, subject line is "Re [DiSCUSSION]" - perhaps gmail (if you use it) is confused again?
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@codeoscopic.com>.
Hi Justin,
there's another VOTE thread?
This is marked as [VOTE], isn't it? so this is the place to vote.
Sorry, but I doesn't understand what do you saying :)
2013/7/23 Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> You might want to post that in the VOTE thread :-)
>
> On 23/07/2013, at 7:28 PM, Carlos Rovira wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > on Mac 10.8.4
> >
> > * build release branch 4.10
> > * construct for ide
> > * test on some projects in intellij
> >
> > all ok
> >
> > Carlos
>
>
--
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: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
You might want to post that in the VOTE thread :-)
On 23/07/2013, at 7:28 PM, Carlos Rovira wrote:
> +1
>
> on Mac 10.8.4
>
> * build release branch 4.10
> * construct for ide
> * test on some projects in intellij
>
> all ok
>
> Carlos
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@codeoscopic.com>.
+1
on Mac 10.8.4
* build release branch 4.10
* construct for ide
* test on some projects in intellij
all ok
Carlos
2013/7/23 Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the feedback glad to see someone is paying attention :-) I'll
> leave it up to other people to decide if these changes require another
> release candidate or not, or can wait until the next release.
>
> > A. As someone noted the other day, FlashDevelop is an excellent
> tool
> > and an open source project which has been very loyal to Flex. Please add
> > them to your list of favorite IDEs.
> Do we know that the packing scripts work for FlashDevelop? I have no
> experience with FlashDevelop, but happy to put it in there if we know it
> works correctly.
>
> > B. The statements concerning OM's installer are redundant after so
> > many cut-n-pastes. The marketing person should rewrite sections "Getting
> > the Convenience" and "Getting the Latest".
> As an Apache release we must release the source code and give instructions
> on how to build it from scratch. Not everyone will want to do that that why
> we made the installer. Those section may need a minor edit but they
> basically need to stay as they are.
>
> > C. "Flex would like to see. support from community" s/b "support
> > from the community."
> Fixed.
>
> > D. Install prerequisites, para 7"" "Not that if you change" s/b
> "Note
> > that if you change."
> Fixed.
>
> > E. Version Support gives an example of how to compile against "the
> > latest version", but uses
> > an example left over from 11.5 -- change it to say 11.8.
> Done.
>
> > F. Using the Binary Distribution -- I know this is a subsection of
> > building from source, but it is just
> > talking about how to download 3rd-party files. Is that really a step
> that
> > one would still take when it is so
> > much more easily accomplished with OM's installer?
> Yes it's required due to the way Apache releases software. However not
> many people are going to take that route when you have the installer.
>
> > G. Thanks for using Apache Flex. Enjoy! would be better expressed as:
> > The team that has produced
> > this release hopes you will enjoy using it for your application
> > requirements.
> I quite like what there - any other opinions on this?
>
> > A. Version Control. " build instructions, in the included" s/b
> > "build instructions are included in the
> > README file."
> Done.
>
> > 03. ASDocs. Houston, we have a problem.
> These components are in the experimental swc and as such may be missing
> full tests and documentation. Over time it's hoped that people will
> contribute what's missing and they be moved into one of the other swf
> packages.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
--
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: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
Thanks for the feedback glad to see someone is paying attention :-) I'll leave it up to other people to decide if these changes require another release candidate or not, or can wait until the next release.
> A. As someone noted the other day, FlashDevelop is an excellent tool
> and an open source project which has been very loyal to Flex. Please add
> them to your list of favorite IDEs.
Do we know that the packing scripts work for FlashDevelop? I have no experience with FlashDevelop, but happy to put it in there if we know it works correctly.
> B. The statements concerning OM's installer are redundant after so
> many cut-n-pastes. The marketing person should rewrite sections "Getting
> the Convenience" and "Getting the Latest".
As an Apache release we must release the source code and give instructions on how to build it from scratch. Not everyone will want to do that that why we made the installer. Those section may need a minor edit but they basically need to stay as they are.
> C. "Flex would like to see. support from community" s/b "support
> from the community."
Fixed.
> D. Install prerequisites, para 7"" "Not that if you change" s/b "Note
> that if you change."
Fixed.
> E. Version Support gives an example of how to compile against "the
> latest version", but uses
> an example left over from 11.5 -- change it to say 11.8.
Done.
> F. Using the Binary Distribution -- I know this is a subsection of
> building from source, but it is just
> talking about how to download 3rd-party files. Is that really a step that
> one would still take when it is so
> much more easily accomplished with OM's installer?
Yes it's required due to the way Apache releases software. However not many people are going to take that route when you have the installer.
> G. Thanks for using Apache Flex. Enjoy! would be better expressed as:
> The team that has produced
> this release hopes you will enjoy using it for your application
> requirements.
I quite like what there - any other opinions on this?
> A. Version Control. " build instructions, in the included" s/b
> "build instructions are included in the
> README file."
Done.
> 03. ASDocs. Houston, we have a problem.
These components are in the experimental swc and as such may be missing full tests and documentation. Over time it's hoped that people will contribute what's missing and they be moved into one of the other swf packages.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Terry Corbet <te...@gmail.com>.
00. Outstanding work.
01. ReadMe.
A. As someone noted the other day, FlashDevelop is an excellent tool
and an open source project which has been very loyal to Flex. Please add
them to your list of favorite IDEs.
B. The statements concerning OM's installer are redundant after so
many cut-n-pastes. The marketing person should rewrite sections "Getting
the Convenience" and "Getting the Latest".
C. "Flex would like to see. support from community" s/b "support
from the community.".
D. Install prerequisites, para 7"" "Not that if you change" s/b "Note
that if you change."
E. Version Support gives an example of how to compile against "the
latest version", but uses
an example left over from 11.5 -- change it to say 11.8.
F. Using the Binary Distribution -- I know this is a subsection of
building from source, but it is just
talking about how to download 3rd-party files. Is that really a step that
one would still take when it is so
much more easily accomplished with OM's installer?
G. Thanks for using Apache Flex. Enjoy! would be better expressed as:
The team that has produced
this release hopes you will enjoy using it for your application
requirements.
02. Release Notes
A. Version Control. " build instructions, in the included" s/b
"build instructions are included in the
README file."
03. ASDocs. Houston, we have a problem. Just take as an example, the
first new component, Accordian. Clearly under the Apache Way, no one is
responsible for product quality assurance. Many thanks to all those who
architected, coded and tested some new functionality, but most new users
will try to work with the new components starting from the documentation.
Replicating the excellence in ASDocs that Adobe established is, of course,
not possible with so many fewer people involved, but I don't think you can
just throw over the transom whatever the engineer decided to stuff into his
code for comments. In the same way you are checking submitted code against
your standards, you have to check the documentation against your standards.
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Any issues or questions about Apache Flex 4.10 RC3 please place in this
> thread.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> My email shows vote and discussion threads at 12:46 am, but changes to the
> README and RELEASE_NOTES at 2:12am (PDT).
Yep, they will become merged into develop if RC3 is successful or used in the next RC if it is not.
> Does this mean there will be an RC4?
Depends on how the votes goes.
> Or are we voting to approve the RC with minor issues in these twofiles?
Yes - no one pointed out these (minor) issues in RC1 or RC2. I think the question to ask is the correct README/RELEASE_NOTES better than the last release or is not having that changes going to cause anyone an issue?
> RC3 will no longer diff against the release branch's head so won't a tag
> be invalid?
No it will be tagged at the correct spot/check in, so no issues there.
> Or did you slip-stream these files into the RC3 kits and update sigs?
That an option, but is probably just as much manual work and I'm not sure if that could be considered an official release.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 3
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Hi,
My email shows vote and discussion threads at 12:46 am, but changes to the
README and RELEASE_NOTES at 2:12am (PDT). Does this mean there will be an
RC4? Or are we voting to approve the RC with minor issues in these two
files?
RC3 will no longer diff against the release branch's head so won't a tag
be invalid?
Yes, I know it won't affect anyone's code at runtime, but if you read
these files from the kit and not from the site you will still see these
issues.
Or did you slip-stream these files into the RC3 kits and update sigs?
(which I would totally support doing instead of rolling a whole new RC4).
-Alex
On 7/23/13 12:45 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Any issues or questions about Apache Flex 4.10 RC3 please place in this
>thread.
>
>Thanks,
>Justin