You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl> on 2013/07/26 12:39:23 UTC
Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
Hi,
I just posted FLEX-33636 [1]: I get the error "Initializer for
'layout': values of type spark.layouts.supportClasses.LayoutBase
cannot be represented in text." on a new project using 4.10.0
(11.8/3.8) in FB 4.7. The error is linked to the 'layout="absolute"'
attribute on the s:Application tag in the MXML stub that you get when
you create a new project in FB.
Can someone please check if they can reproduce? If so, what can be going on?
EdB
1: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-33636
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
My computer is tied up for a couple more hours running tests on the
resource module fix. Does someone have the time to rebuild our current
code with the version 4.9.9 and see if makes FB happier?
I'll see if I can find the FB code for the template.
-Alex
On 7/26/13 6:35 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> So, with 2 people confirming this is indeed an issue, I move to hold
>> the release until this is fixed.
>How do you suggest we fix it? As we can't exactly catch patch Flash
>Builder.
>
>Justin
>
Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> So, with 2 people confirming this is indeed an issue, I move to hold
> the release until this is fixed.
How do you suggest we fix it? As we can't exactly catch patch Flash Builder.
Justin
Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> We can't call this an FB bug
Fairly certain it is a FB bug as we don't generate the application "template" anywhere in the SDK that Im aware of, FB does that itself based on (I assume) the SDK version number.
We might be able to trick it by selecting the right version number but that's not really a good solution.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
Posted by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>.
IntelliJ IDEA 12.0.1 does not have this problem, btw. With 4.10, it
creates a new web project, compiles and runs it fine.
Thanks,
Om
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 4:34 PM, aYo ~ <ay...@binitie.com> wrote:
> Ok here's the feedback on FDT5 Linux. I did not bother with 4.10.0 as that
> is not released yet. I wanted to be certain that the layout attribute was
> not causing problems as it is a released version
>
> 1. With SDK 4.9.0 I get a java null pointer error - I tried to work around
> this error using the FDT suggested method of changing the version in the
> flex sdk configuration xml but I was not successful. Ca na marche pas :(.
>
> 2. With SDK 4.6 which I used as a control I found that the web project
> would not compile with the s:Application attribute layout="absolute". If
> you took that out it compiled fine. Perhaps this bug has been there a lot
> longer than it seems.
>
> aYo
> www.ayobinitie.com
> mrbinitie.blogspot.com
> On 26 Jul 2013 22:50, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I found the offending code in an FB class. It is using a single \d for
> > > the version parsing.
> >
> >
> > Can you please elaborate about the version parsing bug in FB?
> >
> >
> > > I wonder what it would take to patch it?
> > >
> > >
> > Who is this question targeted towards? Adobe FlashBuilder team or Apache
> > Flex team?
> >
> > Would FlashBuilder team be willing to push out a patch just to support
> > Apache Flex 4.10? Or is it possible to solve the problem by calling our
> > release 5.0.0 (just asking)
> >
> > And do we know if the other IDEs dont have this same problem? Anyone
> tried
> > it out on FDT, IntelliJ, FlashDevelop, etc.?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Om
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -Alex
> > >
> > > On 7/26/13 8:45 AM, "Frédéric Thomas" <we...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Oups, I meant when the build number is 0
> > > >
> > > >-----Message d'origine-----
> > > >From: Frédéric Thomas
> > > >Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 5:40 PM
> > > >To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > >Subject: Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
> > > >
> > > >> But I wonder if the version element is used elsewhere?
> > > >
> > > >Just for info, it is used by the mavenizer too but there is no issues,
> > > >tested it time ago with 4.10.x
> > > >One particularity is with x == 0, it generates 4.10.0-SNAPSHOT instead
> > of
> > > >the classic 4.10.x which is useful when you want to mavenize the
> develop
> > > >branch and it is well taken in account by IntelliJ
> > > >
> > > >-Fred
> > > >
> > > >-----Message d'origine-----
> > > >From: Alex Harui
> > > >Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 5:24 PM
> > > >To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > >Subject: Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
> > > >
> > > >Ugh. Thanks for checking it out.
> > > >
> > > >So the SDK name still showed up as 4.10? I suppose we could just
> leave
> > > >the version element at 4.9.9 with a comment saying we had to do that
> for
> > > >FB. But I wonder if the version element is used elsewhere?
> > > >
> > > >-Alex
> > > >
> > > >On 7/26/13 7:52 AM, "Cyrill Zadra" <cy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>With following steps I could create new flash builder projects again
> > > >>with no errors.
> > > >>
> > > >>1) Changed <version> element in flex-sdk-description.xml from 4.10.0
> to
> > > >>4.9.0
> > > >>2) Configure SDK in Flash Builder
> > > >>3) Create new Project with newly configured SDK
> > > >>
> > > >>My sdk was installed with Apache Flex Installer. So I would say the
> > > >>problem ist the version number.
> > > >>
> > > >>On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
> wrote:
> > > >>> In one of the past releases, we messed up the core.swc build script
> > and
> > > >>> didn't catch it until after release. It seems like we should make
> > sure
> > > >>> this is in fact a bug in FB and not some other thing we messed up
> > that
> > > >>>is
> > > >>> under our control before releasing. So somebody should try a build
> > > >>>with a
> > > >>> 4.9.9 version number just to be sure. I'll see if I can get
> another
> > > >>> computer going on it.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Clearly we all have different opinions on quality, but a problem in
> > the
> > > >>> first thing a newbie tries with FB New Project wouldn't make us
> look
> > > >>>very
> > > >>> good and attract more people, especially if we can find a way
> around
> > > >>>it,
> > > >>> and shipping with known regressions doesn't help either. Very
> > > >>>recently,
> > > >>> OpenOffice also voted to release and was in the process of copying
> > > >>>their
> > > >>> bits to dist when they stopped because an issue was found. Just
> > > >>>because
> > > >>> you have the votes doesn't mean you have to deploy those bits.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -Alex
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 7/26/13 7:00 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>Hi,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>And I really have to say this is not exactly a show stopper or
> > critical
> > > >>>>issue. This need to put into perspective as there a very simple
> work
> > > >>>>around eg just fix/edit the code yourself. It's an inconvenience at
> > > >>>>most,
> > > >>>>nothing to do with the SDK itself, and not everyone uses Flash
> > Builder.
> > > >>>>I'm not sure we can ever fix the issue, without revering the
> version
> > > >>>>number to 4.9.2 or something silly. We should be asking Adobe to
> fix
> > it
> > > >>>>not using it as yet another excuse to not make a release.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>The vote for the release candidates has passed and was successful.
> As
> > > >>>>the
> > > >>>>release manager I'm willing to give a couple of days grace to see
> if
> > > >>>>any
> > > >>>>solutions for any "outstanding" issues can be found and consider
> > > >>>>creating
> > > >>>>a new release candidate to put up for another vote, but beyond they
> > can
> > > >>>>go into the next point release, anything more than that is really
> > going
> > > >>>>against Apache policy.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Thanks,
> > > >>>>Justin
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
Posted by aYo ~ <ay...@binitie.com>.
Ok here's the feedback on FDT5 Linux. I did not bother with 4.10.0 as that
is not released yet. I wanted to be certain that the layout attribute was
not causing problems as it is a released version
1. With SDK 4.9.0 I get a java null pointer error - I tried to work around
this error using the FDT suggested method of changing the version in the
flex sdk configuration xml but I was not successful. Ca na marche pas :(.
2. With SDK 4.6 which I used as a control I found that the web project
would not compile with the s:Application attribute layout="absolute". If
you took that out it compiled fine. Perhaps this bug has been there a lot
longer than it seems.
aYo
www.ayobinitie.com
mrbinitie.blogspot.com
On 26 Jul 2013 22:50, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> > I found the offending code in an FB class. It is using a single \d for
> > the version parsing.
>
>
> Can you please elaborate about the version parsing bug in FB?
>
>
> > I wonder what it would take to patch it?
> >
> >
> Who is this question targeted towards? Adobe FlashBuilder team or Apache
> Flex team?
>
> Would FlashBuilder team be willing to push out a patch just to support
> Apache Flex 4.10? Or is it possible to solve the problem by calling our
> release 5.0.0 (just asking)
>
> And do we know if the other IDEs dont have this same problem? Anyone tried
> it out on FDT, IntelliJ, FlashDevelop, etc.?
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 7/26/13 8:45 AM, "Frédéric Thomas" <we...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Oups, I meant when the build number is 0
> > >
> > >-----Message d'origine-----
> > >From: Frédéric Thomas
> > >Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 5:40 PM
> > >To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > >Subject: Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
> > >
> > >> But I wonder if the version element is used elsewhere?
> > >
> > >Just for info, it is used by the mavenizer too but there is no issues,
> > >tested it time ago with 4.10.x
> > >One particularity is with x == 0, it generates 4.10.0-SNAPSHOT instead
> of
> > >the classic 4.10.x which is useful when you want to mavenize the develop
> > >branch and it is well taken in account by IntelliJ
> > >
> > >-Fred
> > >
> > >-----Message d'origine-----
> > >From: Alex Harui
> > >Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 5:24 PM
> > >To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > >Subject: Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
> > >
> > >Ugh. Thanks for checking it out.
> > >
> > >So the SDK name still showed up as 4.10? I suppose we could just leave
> > >the version element at 4.9.9 with a comment saying we had to do that for
> > >FB. But I wonder if the version element is used elsewhere?
> > >
> > >-Alex
> > >
> > >On 7/26/13 7:52 AM, "Cyrill Zadra" <cy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>With following steps I could create new flash builder projects again
> > >>with no errors.
> > >>
> > >>1) Changed <version> element in flex-sdk-description.xml from 4.10.0 to
> > >>4.9.0
> > >>2) Configure SDK in Flash Builder
> > >>3) Create new Project with newly configured SDK
> > >>
> > >>My sdk was installed with Apache Flex Installer. So I would say the
> > >>problem ist the version number.
> > >>
> > >>On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> > >>> In one of the past releases, we messed up the core.swc build script
> and
> > >>> didn't catch it until after release. It seems like we should make
> sure
> > >>> this is in fact a bug in FB and not some other thing we messed up
> that
> > >>>is
> > >>> under our control before releasing. So somebody should try a build
> > >>>with a
> > >>> 4.9.9 version number just to be sure. I'll see if I can get another
> > >>> computer going on it.
> > >>>
> > >>> Clearly we all have different opinions on quality, but a problem in
> the
> > >>> first thing a newbie tries with FB New Project wouldn't make us look
> > >>>very
> > >>> good and attract more people, especially if we can find a way around
> > >>>it,
> > >>> and shipping with known regressions doesn't help either. Very
> > >>>recently,
> > >>> OpenOffice also voted to release and was in the process of copying
> > >>>their
> > >>> bits to dist when they stopped because an issue was found. Just
> > >>>because
> > >>> you have the votes doesn't mean you have to deploy those bits.
> > >>>
> > >>> -Alex
> > >>>
> > >>> On 7/26/13 7:00 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>Hi,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>And I really have to say this is not exactly a show stopper or
> critical
> > >>>>issue. This need to put into perspective as there a very simple work
> > >>>>around eg just fix/edit the code yourself. It's an inconvenience at
> > >>>>most,
> > >>>>nothing to do with the SDK itself, and not everyone uses Flash
> Builder.
> > >>>>I'm not sure we can ever fix the issue, without revering the version
> > >>>>number to 4.9.2 or something silly. We should be asking Adobe to fix
> it
> > >>>>not using it as yet another excuse to not make a release.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>The vote for the release candidates has passed and was successful. As
> > >>>>the
> > >>>>release manager I'm willing to give a couple of days grace to see if
> > >>>>any
> > >>>>solutions for any "outstanding" issues can be found and consider
> > >>>>creating
> > >>>>a new release candidate to put up for another vote, but beyond they
> can
> > >>>>go into the next point release, anything more than that is really
> going
> > >>>>against Apache policy.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Thanks,
> > >>>>Justin
> > >>>
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 7/26/13 2:49 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> I found the offending code in an FB class. It is using a single \d for
>> the version parsing.
>
>
>Can you please elaborate about the version parsing bug in FB?
AFAICT, this snippet is the problem:
Pattern pattern = Pattern.compile("^(\\d+(\\.\\d+(\\.\\d+)?)?).*$");
>
>
>> I wonder what it would take to patch it?
>>
>>
>Who is this question targeted towards? Adobe FlashBuilder team or Apache
>Flex team?
Apache Flex. I will ask Adobe FlashBuilder team as well, but I can't
imagine they can react as quickly as we want.
>
Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
Posted by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> I found the offending code in an FB class. It is using a single \d for
> the version parsing.
Can you please elaborate about the version parsing bug in FB?
> I wonder what it would take to patch it?
>
>
Who is this question targeted towards? Adobe FlashBuilder team or Apache
Flex team?
Would FlashBuilder team be willing to push out a patch just to support
Apache Flex 4.10? Or is it possible to solve the problem by calling our
release 5.0.0 (just asking)
And do we know if the other IDEs dont have this same problem? Anyone tried
it out on FDT, IntelliJ, FlashDevelop, etc.?
Thanks,
Om
> -Alex
>
> On 7/26/13 8:45 AM, "Frédéric Thomas" <we...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Oups, I meant when the build number is 0
> >
> >-----Message d'origine-----
> >From: Frédéric Thomas
> >Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 5:40 PM
> >To: dev@flex.apache.org
> >Subject: Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
> >
> >> But I wonder if the version element is used elsewhere?
> >
> >Just for info, it is used by the mavenizer too but there is no issues,
> >tested it time ago with 4.10.x
> >One particularity is with x == 0, it generates 4.10.0-SNAPSHOT instead of
> >the classic 4.10.x which is useful when you want to mavenize the develop
> >branch and it is well taken in account by IntelliJ
> >
> >-Fred
> >
> >-----Message d'origine-----
> >From: Alex Harui
> >Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 5:24 PM
> >To: dev@flex.apache.org
> >Subject: Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
> >
> >Ugh. Thanks for checking it out.
> >
> >So the SDK name still showed up as 4.10? I suppose we could just leave
> >the version element at 4.9.9 with a comment saying we had to do that for
> >FB. But I wonder if the version element is used elsewhere?
> >
> >-Alex
> >
> >On 7/26/13 7:52 AM, "Cyrill Zadra" <cy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>With following steps I could create new flash builder projects again
> >>with no errors.
> >>
> >>1) Changed <version> element in flex-sdk-description.xml from 4.10.0 to
> >>4.9.0
> >>2) Configure SDK in Flash Builder
> >>3) Create new Project with newly configured SDK
> >>
> >>My sdk was installed with Apache Flex Installer. So I would say the
> >>problem ist the version number.
> >>
> >>On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >>> In one of the past releases, we messed up the core.swc build script and
> >>> didn't catch it until after release. It seems like we should make sure
> >>> this is in fact a bug in FB and not some other thing we messed up that
> >>>is
> >>> under our control before releasing. So somebody should try a build
> >>>with a
> >>> 4.9.9 version number just to be sure. I'll see if I can get another
> >>> computer going on it.
> >>>
> >>> Clearly we all have different opinions on quality, but a problem in the
> >>> first thing a newbie tries with FB New Project wouldn't make us look
> >>>very
> >>> good and attract more people, especially if we can find a way around
> >>>it,
> >>> and shipping with known regressions doesn't help either. Very
> >>>recently,
> >>> OpenOffice also voted to release and was in the process of copying
> >>>their
> >>> bits to dist when they stopped because an issue was found. Just
> >>>because
> >>> you have the votes doesn't mean you have to deploy those bits.
> >>>
> >>> -Alex
> >>>
> >>> On 7/26/13 7:00 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>>And I really have to say this is not exactly a show stopper or critical
> >>>>issue. This need to put into perspective as there a very simple work
> >>>>around eg just fix/edit the code yourself. It's an inconvenience at
> >>>>most,
> >>>>nothing to do with the SDK itself, and not everyone uses Flash Builder.
> >>>>I'm not sure we can ever fix the issue, without revering the version
> >>>>number to 4.9.2 or something silly. We should be asking Adobe to fix it
> >>>>not using it as yet another excuse to not make a release.
> >>>>
> >>>>The vote for the release candidates has passed and was successful. As
> >>>>the
> >>>>release manager I'm willing to give a couple of days grace to see if
> >>>>any
> >>>>solutions for any "outstanding" issues can be found and consider
> >>>>creating
> >>>>a new release candidate to put up for another vote, but beyond they can
> >>>>go into the next point release, anything more than that is really going
> >>>>against Apache policy.
> >>>>
> >>>>Thanks,
> >>>>Justin
> >>>
> >
>
>
Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
I found the offending code in an FB class. It is using a single \d for
the version parsing. I wonder what it would take to patch it?
-Alex
On 7/26/13 8:45 AM, "Frédéric Thomas" <we...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Oups, I meant when the build number is 0
>
>-----Message d'origine-----
>From: Frédéric Thomas
>Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 5:40 PM
>To: dev@flex.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
>
>> But I wonder if the version element is used elsewhere?
>
>Just for info, it is used by the mavenizer too but there is no issues,
>tested it time ago with 4.10.x
>One particularity is with x == 0, it generates 4.10.0-SNAPSHOT instead of
>the classic 4.10.x which is useful when you want to mavenize the develop
>branch and it is well taken in account by IntelliJ
>
>-Fred
>
>-----Message d'origine-----
>From: Alex Harui
>Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 5:24 PM
>To: dev@flex.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
>
>Ugh. Thanks for checking it out.
>
>So the SDK name still showed up as 4.10? I suppose we could just leave
>the version element at 4.9.9 with a comment saying we had to do that for
>FB. But I wonder if the version element is used elsewhere?
>
>-Alex
>
>On 7/26/13 7:52 AM, "Cyrill Zadra" <cy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>With following steps I could create new flash builder projects again
>>with no errors.
>>
>>1) Changed <version> element in flex-sdk-description.xml from 4.10.0 to
>>4.9.0
>>2) Configure SDK in Flash Builder
>>3) Create new Project with newly configured SDK
>>
>>My sdk was installed with Apache Flex Installer. So I would say the
>>problem ist the version number.
>>
>>On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>> In one of the past releases, we messed up the core.swc build script and
>>> didn't catch it until after release. It seems like we should make sure
>>> this is in fact a bug in FB and not some other thing we messed up that
>>>is
>>> under our control before releasing. So somebody should try a build
>>>with a
>>> 4.9.9 version number just to be sure. I'll see if I can get another
>>> computer going on it.
>>>
>>> Clearly we all have different opinions on quality, but a problem in the
>>> first thing a newbie tries with FB New Project wouldn't make us look
>>>very
>>> good and attract more people, especially if we can find a way around
>>>it,
>>> and shipping with known regressions doesn't help either. Very
>>>recently,
>>> OpenOffice also voted to release and was in the process of copying
>>>their
>>> bits to dist when they stopped because an issue was found. Just
>>>because
>>> you have the votes doesn't mean you have to deploy those bits.
>>>
>>> -Alex
>>>
>>> On 7/26/13 7:00 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>And I really have to say this is not exactly a show stopper or critical
>>>>issue. This need to put into perspective as there a very simple work
>>>>around eg just fix/edit the code yourself. It's an inconvenience at
>>>>most,
>>>>nothing to do with the SDK itself, and not everyone uses Flash Builder.
>>>>I'm not sure we can ever fix the issue, without revering the version
>>>>number to 4.9.2 or something silly. We should be asking Adobe to fix it
>>>>not using it as yet another excuse to not make a release.
>>>>
>>>>The vote for the release candidates has passed and was successful. As
>>>>the
>>>>release manager I'm willing to give a couple of days grace to see if
>>>>any
>>>>solutions for any "outstanding" issues can be found and consider
>>>>creating
>>>>a new release candidate to put up for another vote, but beyond they can
>>>>go into the next point release, anything more than that is really going
>>>>against Apache policy.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>Justin
>>>
>
Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
Posted by Frédéric Thomas <we...@hotmail.com>.
Oups, I meant when the build number is 0
-----Message d'origine-----
From: Frédéric Thomas
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 5:40 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
> But I wonder if the version element is used elsewhere?
Just for info, it is used by the mavenizer too but there is no issues,
tested it time ago with 4.10.x
One particularity is with x == 0, it generates 4.10.0-SNAPSHOT instead of
the classic 4.10.x which is useful when you want to mavenize the develop
branch and it is well taken in account by IntelliJ
-Fred
-----Message d'origine-----
From: Alex Harui
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 5:24 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
Ugh. Thanks for checking it out.
So the SDK name still showed up as 4.10? I suppose we could just leave
the version element at 4.9.9 with a comment saying we had to do that for
FB. But I wonder if the version element is used elsewhere?
-Alex
On 7/26/13 7:52 AM, "Cyrill Zadra" <cy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>With following steps I could create new flash builder projects again
>with no errors.
>
>1) Changed <version> element in flex-sdk-description.xml from 4.10.0 to
>4.9.0
>2) Configure SDK in Flash Builder
>3) Create new Project with newly configured SDK
>
>My sdk was installed with Apache Flex Installer. So I would say the
>problem ist the version number.
>
>On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> In one of the past releases, we messed up the core.swc build script and
>> didn't catch it until after release. It seems like we should make sure
>> this is in fact a bug in FB and not some other thing we messed up that
>>is
>> under our control before releasing. So somebody should try a build
>>with a
>> 4.9.9 version number just to be sure. I'll see if I can get another
>> computer going on it.
>>
>> Clearly we all have different opinions on quality, but a problem in the
>> first thing a newbie tries with FB New Project wouldn't make us look
>>very
>> good and attract more people, especially if we can find a way around it,
>> and shipping with known regressions doesn't help either. Very recently,
>> OpenOffice also voted to release and was in the process of copying their
>> bits to dist when they stopped because an issue was found. Just because
>> you have the votes doesn't mean you have to deploy those bits.
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 7/26/13 7:00 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>And I really have to say this is not exactly a show stopper or critical
>>>issue. This need to put into perspective as there a very simple work
>>>around eg just fix/edit the code yourself. It's an inconvenience at
>>>most,
>>>nothing to do with the SDK itself, and not everyone uses Flash Builder.
>>>I'm not sure we can ever fix the issue, without revering the version
>>>number to 4.9.2 or something silly. We should be asking Adobe to fix it
>>>not using it as yet another excuse to not make a release.
>>>
>>>The vote for the release candidates has passed and was successful. As
>>>the
>>>release manager I'm willing to give a couple of days grace to see if any
>>>solutions for any "outstanding" issues can be found and consider
>>>creating
>>>a new release candidate to put up for another vote, but beyond they can
>>>go into the next point release, anything more than that is really going
>>>against Apache policy.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Justin
>>
Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
Posted by Frédéric Thomas <we...@hotmail.com>.
> But I wonder if the version element is used elsewhere?
Just for info, it is used by the mavenizer too but there is no issues,
tested it time ago with 4.10.x
One particularity is with x == 0, it generates 4.10.0-SNAPSHOT instead of
the classic 4.10.x which is useful when you want to mavenize the develop
branch and it is well taken in account by IntelliJ
-Fred
-----Message d'origine-----
From: Alex Harui
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 5:24 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
Ugh. Thanks for checking it out.
So the SDK name still showed up as 4.10? I suppose we could just leave
the version element at 4.9.9 with a comment saying we had to do that for
FB. But I wonder if the version element is used elsewhere?
-Alex
On 7/26/13 7:52 AM, "Cyrill Zadra" <cy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>With following steps I could create new flash builder projects again
>with no errors.
>
>1) Changed <version> element in flex-sdk-description.xml from 4.10.0 to
>4.9.0
>2) Configure SDK in Flash Builder
>3) Create new Project with newly configured SDK
>
>My sdk was installed with Apache Flex Installer. So I would say the
>problem ist the version number.
>
>On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> In one of the past releases, we messed up the core.swc build script and
>> didn't catch it until after release. It seems like we should make sure
>> this is in fact a bug in FB and not some other thing we messed up that
>>is
>> under our control before releasing. So somebody should try a build
>>with a
>> 4.9.9 version number just to be sure. I'll see if I can get another
>> computer going on it.
>>
>> Clearly we all have different opinions on quality, but a problem in the
>> first thing a newbie tries with FB New Project wouldn't make us look
>>very
>> good and attract more people, especially if we can find a way around it,
>> and shipping with known regressions doesn't help either. Very recently,
>> OpenOffice also voted to release and was in the process of copying their
>> bits to dist when they stopped because an issue was found. Just because
>> you have the votes doesn't mean you have to deploy those bits.
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 7/26/13 7:00 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>And I really have to say this is not exactly a show stopper or critical
>>>issue. This need to put into perspective as there a very simple work
>>>around eg just fix/edit the code yourself. It's an inconvenience at
>>>most,
>>>nothing to do with the SDK itself, and not everyone uses Flash Builder.
>>>I'm not sure we can ever fix the issue, without revering the version
>>>number to 4.9.2 or something silly. We should be asking Adobe to fix it
>>>not using it as yet another excuse to not make a release.
>>>
>>>The vote for the release candidates has passed and was successful. As
>>>the
>>>release manager I'm willing to give a couple of days grace to see if any
>>>solutions for any "outstanding" issues can be found and consider
>>>creating
>>>a new release candidate to put up for another vote, but beyond they can
>>>go into the next point release, anything more than that is really going
>>>against Apache policy.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Justin
>>
Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Ugh. Thanks for checking it out.
So the SDK name still showed up as 4.10? I suppose we could just leave
the version element at 4.9.9 with a comment saying we had to do that for
FB. But I wonder if the version element is used elsewhere?
-Alex
On 7/26/13 7:52 AM, "Cyrill Zadra" <cy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>With following steps I could create new flash builder projects again
>with no errors.
>
>1) Changed <version> element in flex-sdk-description.xml from 4.10.0 to
>4.9.0
>2) Configure SDK in Flash Builder
>3) Create new Project with newly configured SDK
>
>My sdk was installed with Apache Flex Installer. So I would say the
>problem ist the version number.
>
>On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> In one of the past releases, we messed up the core.swc build script and
>> didn't catch it until after release. It seems like we should make sure
>> this is in fact a bug in FB and not some other thing we messed up that
>>is
>> under our control before releasing. So somebody should try a build
>>with a
>> 4.9.9 version number just to be sure. I'll see if I can get another
>> computer going on it.
>>
>> Clearly we all have different opinions on quality, but a problem in the
>> first thing a newbie tries with FB New Project wouldn't make us look
>>very
>> good and attract more people, especially if we can find a way around it,
>> and shipping with known regressions doesn't help either. Very recently,
>> OpenOffice also voted to release and was in the process of copying their
>> bits to dist when they stopped because an issue was found. Just because
>> you have the votes doesn't mean you have to deploy those bits.
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 7/26/13 7:00 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>And I really have to say this is not exactly a show stopper or critical
>>>issue. This need to put into perspective as there a very simple work
>>>around eg just fix/edit the code yourself. It's an inconvenience at
>>>most,
>>>nothing to do with the SDK itself, and not everyone uses Flash Builder.
>>>I'm not sure we can ever fix the issue, without revering the version
>>>number to 4.9.2 or something silly. We should be asking Adobe to fix it
>>>not using it as yet another excuse to not make a release.
>>>
>>>The vote for the release candidates has passed and was successful. As
>>>the
>>>release manager I'm willing to give a couple of days grace to see if any
>>>solutions for any "outstanding" issues can be found and consider
>>>creating
>>>a new release candidate to put up for another vote, but beyond they can
>>>go into the next point release, anything more than that is really going
>>>against Apache policy.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Justin
>>
Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
Posted by Cyrill Zadra <cy...@gmail.com>.
With following steps I could create new flash builder projects again
with no errors.
1) Changed <version> element in flex-sdk-description.xml from 4.10.0 to 4.9.0
2) Configure SDK in Flash Builder
3) Create new Project with newly configured SDK
My sdk was installed with Apache Flex Installer. So I would say the
problem ist the version number.
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> In one of the past releases, we messed up the core.swc build script and
> didn't catch it until after release. It seems like we should make sure
> this is in fact a bug in FB and not some other thing we messed up that is
> under our control before releasing. So somebody should try a build with a
> 4.9.9 version number just to be sure. I'll see if I can get another
> computer going on it.
>
> Clearly we all have different opinions on quality, but a problem in the
> first thing a newbie tries with FB New Project wouldn't make us look very
> good and attract more people, especially if we can find a way around it,
> and shipping with known regressions doesn't help either. Very recently,
> OpenOffice also voted to release and was in the process of copying their
> bits to dist when they stopped because an issue was found. Just because
> you have the votes doesn't mean you have to deploy those bits.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 7/26/13 7:00 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>And I really have to say this is not exactly a show stopper or critical
>>issue. This need to put into perspective as there a very simple work
>>around eg just fix/edit the code yourself. It's an inconvenience at most,
>>nothing to do with the SDK itself, and not everyone uses Flash Builder.
>>I'm not sure we can ever fix the issue, without revering the version
>>number to 4.9.2 or something silly. We should be asking Adobe to fix it
>>not using it as yet another excuse to not make a release.
>>
>>The vote for the release candidates has passed and was successful. As the
>>release manager I'm willing to give a couple of days grace to see if any
>>solutions for any "outstanding" issues can be found and consider creating
>>a new release candidate to put up for another vote, but beyond they can
>>go into the next point release, anything more than that is really going
>>against Apache policy.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Justin
>
Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
Posted by ay...@binitie.com.
What about the issue with FDT, it's coming up with a null pointer error in 4.9 and 4.10, surely that's an issue
aYo
www.ayobinitie.com
mrbinitie.blogspot.com
From: Erik de Bruin
Sent: Saturday, 27 July 2013 11:14
To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>committers test and vote again. Will those committers who voted before be
>>willing to put in time and effort to vote again?
> I will.
I certainly will. That's the least any committer can do for the project!
On the topic of the FB template issue, I think we can afford a bump to
5.0.0; Linux support, the telemetry stuff, new components and hundreds
of bug fixes. Also, this one is something a point update won't solve.
Waiting for Adobe to fix FB would be an exercise in futility. And I
still think making most of our users work with a new project wizard
that results in a project that has a compiler error in it right from
the start is (understatement alert) foolish.
EdB
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
>>committers test and vote again. Will those committers who voted before be
>>willing to put in time and effort to vote again?
> I will.
I certainly will. That's the least any committer can do for the project!
On the topic of the FB template issue, I think we can afford a bump to
5.0.0; Linux support, the telemetry stuff, new components and hundreds
of bug fixes. Also, this one is something a point update won't solve.
Waiting for Adobe to fix FB would be an exercise in futility. And I
still think making most of our users work with a new project wizard
that results in a project that has a compiler error in it right from
the start is (understatement alert) foolish.
EdB
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 7/26/13 11:58 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> I want to release. I agree that a release is long over due. I think we
>> should, in the future, release earlier and more often.
>That's what the release voting should encourage - yes you want to release
>quality software but it's OK to ship with a bug or two and fix them up
>next release.
Agreed, except if they are regressions. I hate going backwards and it sort
of implies that we don't have our quality control act together.
>
>IMO None of the current outstanding issues are show stopper/blockers they
>effect a small proportion of the the SDK users and/or have work arounds.
I still don't understand the workaround for the verify error on DataList.
The bug author's workaround doesn't make sense.
>
>Choices are:
>1. Fix the issues (we're still not certain how to fix at least one
>issue), make yet another release candidate (not an insignificant effort
>btw), call another vote (wait a minimum 3 days to have it pass), have
>committers test and vote again. Will those committers who voted before be
>willing to put in time and effort to vote again?
I will.
>2. Make this the release and follow up as quickly as we can with a
>4.10.1, fixing those issues and any others that might show up once 4.10.0
>gets into users hands.
This seems like more work.
>
>We do seem to be forgetting that there are a lot of features and bug
>fixes in the release that would be good to actually put into people
>hands. The mustella tests do pass, and the quality of the 4.10 RC 3
>release is better than 4.9.1, 4.8 or 4.6.
>
>During the next 3 weeks I'm travelling overseas and attending a
>conference so that will also slow the process down if we need to make
>another RC or 2.
If we revert Ilist, I can have that and the resource module fix in
tomorrow. Not sure what to do about the "new project" problem. You are
right that the code parses correctly so I'm still digging to find out
where it is going wrong.
>
>Thanks,
>Justin
Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> I want to release. I agree that a release is long over due. I think we
> should, in the future, release earlier and more often.
That's what the release voting should encourage - yes you want to release quality software but it's OK to ship with a bug or two and fix them up next release.
IMO None of the current outstanding issues are show stopper/blockers they effect a small proportion of the the SDK users and/or have work arounds.
Choices are:
1. Fix the issues (we're still not certain how to fix at least one issue), make yet another release candidate (not an insignificant effort btw), call another vote (wait a minimum 3 days to have it pass), have committers test and vote again. Will those committers who voted before be willing to put in time and effort to vote again?
2. Make this the release and follow up as quickly as we can with a 4.10.1, fixing those issues and any others that might show up once 4.10.0 gets into users hands.
We do seem to be forgetting that there are a lot of features and bug fixes in the release that would be good to actually put into people hands. The mustella tests do pass, and the quality of the 4.10 RC 3 release is better than 4.9.1, 4.8 or 4.6.
During the next 3 weeks I'm travelling overseas and attending a conference so that will also slow the process down if we need to make another RC or 2.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
I must strongly disagree. If you can't even create a new project in FB
with the latest SDK release, we are going to have a lot of negative
karma send our way. Not to mention the consequences of having less
experienced and new users try to run an EMPTY application and fail -
and then have to debug it, not having a clue.
That is not the way we should do stuff. The vote passed when the
current two 'show stopper' issues were not known. The fact that the
letter of the Apache Way was followed doesn't mean that we are not now
going very much against the spirit of it.
I want to release. I agree that a release is long over due. I think we
should, in the future, release earlier and more often. But I also
think that quality is key. If we start releasing code that doesn't
even compile an empty project template in the most used IDE... I don't
know.
EdB
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> And I really have to say this is not exactly a show stopper or critical issue. This need to put into perspective as there a very simple work around eg just fix/edit the code yourself. It's an inconvenience at most, nothing to do with the SDK itself, and not everyone uses Flash Builder. I'm not sure we can ever fix the issue, without revering the version number to 4.9.2 or something silly. We should be asking Adobe to fix it not using it as yet another excuse to not make a release.
>
> The vote for the release candidates has passed and was successful. As the release manager I'm willing to give a couple of days grace to see if any solutions for any "outstanding" issues can be found and consider creating a new release candidate to put up for another vote, but beyond they can go into the next point release, anything more than that is really going against Apache policy.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
In one of the past releases, we messed up the core.swc build script and
didn't catch it until after release. It seems like we should make sure
this is in fact a bug in FB and not some other thing we messed up that is
under our control before releasing. So somebody should try a build with a
4.9.9 version number just to be sure. I'll see if I can get another
computer going on it.
Clearly we all have different opinions on quality, but a problem in the
first thing a newbie tries with FB New Project wouldn't make us look very
good and attract more people, especially if we can find a way around it,
and shipping with known regressions doesn't help either. Very recently,
OpenOffice also voted to release and was in the process of copying their
bits to dist when they stopped because an issue was found. Just because
you have the votes doesn't mean you have to deploy those bits.
-Alex
On 7/26/13 7:00 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>And I really have to say this is not exactly a show stopper or critical
>issue. This need to put into perspective as there a very simple work
>around eg just fix/edit the code yourself. It's an inconvenience at most,
>nothing to do with the SDK itself, and not everyone uses Flash Builder.
>I'm not sure we can ever fix the issue, without revering the version
>number to 4.9.2 or something silly. We should be asking Adobe to fix it
>not using it as yet another excuse to not make a release.
>
>The vote for the release candidates has passed and was successful. As the
>release manager I'm willing to give a couple of days grace to see if any
>solutions for any "outstanding" issues can be found and consider creating
>a new release candidate to put up for another vote, but beyond they can
>go into the next point release, anything more than that is really going
>against Apache policy.
>
>Thanks,
>Justin
Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
And I really have to say this is not exactly a show stopper or critical issue. This need to put into perspective as there a very simple work around eg just fix/edit the code yourself. It's an inconvenience at most, nothing to do with the SDK itself, and not everyone uses Flash Builder. I'm not sure we can ever fix the issue, without revering the version number to 4.9.2 or something silly. We should be asking Adobe to fix it not using it as yet another excuse to not make a release.
The vote for the release candidates has passed and was successful. As the release manager I'm willing to give a couple of days grace to see if any solutions for any "outstanding" issues can be found and consider creating a new release candidate to put up for another vote, but beyond they can go into the next point release, anything more than that is really going against Apache policy.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
We can't call this an FB bug, as 'New Project' works correctly with
SDK 4.9.1 and Flash Builder hasn't been updated between the 4.9
release and this one. It must be something we did for this release
that made 'New Project' - a rather essential feature, I'd say - fail.
So, with 2 people confirming this is indeed an issue, I move to hold
the release until this is fixed.
EdB
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Cyrill Zadra <cy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Erik
>
> Yes I can also reproduce. When I choose Flex SDK 4.6 instead of an
> Apache Flex SDK to create a project it uses a correct template. Is
> there somwhere still a bug database for flash builder?
>
> regards
> Cyrill
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Can reproduce. Looks like a FB bug to me (sadly - means we can't fix it), I think it thinks it's an old project (it's not passing the SDK version number correctly) and stuffs up the application template.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
Posted by Cyrill Zadra <cy...@gmail.com>.
Hi Erik
Yes I can also reproduce. When I choose Flex SDK 4.6 instead of an
Apache Flex SDK to create a project it uses a correct template. Is
there somwhere still a bug database for flash builder?
regards
Cyrill
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can reproduce. Looks like a FB bug to me (sadly - means we can't fix it), I think it thinks it's an old project (it's not passing the SDK version number correctly) and stuffs up the application template.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
Can reproduce. Looks like a FB bug to me (sadly - means we can't fix it), I think it thinks it's an old project (it's not passing the SDK version number correctly) and stuffs up the application template.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
Posted by ay...@binitie.com.
I have the same error as well, for a Flex 4.10 RC3 web project.
No issues at the moment for mobile or desk AIR
aYo
www.ayobinitie.com
mrbinitie.blogspot.com
From: Erik de Bruin
Sent: Friday, 26 July 2013 11:39
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Hi,
I just posted FLEX-33636 [1]: I get the error "Initializer for
'layout': values of type spark.layouts.supportClasses.LayoutBase
cannot be represented in text." on a new project using 4.10.0
(11.8/3.8) in FB 4.7. The error is linked to the 'layout="absolute"'
attribute on the s:Application tag in the MXML stub that you get when
you create a new project in FB.
Can someone please check if they can reproduce? If so, what can be going on?
EdB
1: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-33636
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl