You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de> on 2016/08/18 11:40:50 UTC
Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?
Hi,
as I mentioned a few days ago, I will be having a talk on FlexJS in Hamburg on 08.09.2016 (http://programmplaner.solutions.hamburg/#/).
I hope we will be able to ship a new version with the Maven support till then? Do you think that's possible? What are we missing?
I would suggest that I stage a Maven release and you do an Ant release based on the Maven Release Tag. Maven does two commits during a release: 1. change the version number to the release version, 2. Change the version to the next development version. It tags the commit number 1 automatically. So if you would do an Ant release from that state, the version number should be consistent. The only thing we would need to do is merge both ends back together, but that shouldn't be an issue as the files touched during an Ant release should be different than those of a Maven release.
The only thing I would need to do before that, would be to prepare 1.0.0 releases of the build-helper-maven plugin and the little jburg-types jar. I could initiate this any time.
Chris
AW: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
Ok so if we are all set and ready, I would start preparing a 1.0.0 release of burg-types and the build tools plugin and then stage a Maven release (candidate) in a staffing repo. As soon as that's done, one of you could initiate a normal ant release build.
Are you ok with that?
Chris
Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: Josh Tynjala <jo...@gmail.com>
Datum: 19.08.16 16:28 (GMT+01:00)
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?
I have been using the latest nightlies to work on some projects, and things
look good to me.
- Josh
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 8/19/16, 1:41 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >> Should we wait for more reviews or create release candidates?
> >
> >IMO proof is in the eating rather than looking at the menu, time for a RC!
>
> I'm not sure what that means, but I believe it has been agreed upon that
> we are supposed to conduct as thorough a review of the nightly builds as
> would be done of the RC, because it is way more efficient to find a
> problem in the nightly than in the RC. Even the board has recommended
> such an approach, and for reviewing commits.
>
> So please, make a review of the latest nightly or of the commits since
> your last review of the nightly and let us know what you find.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
>
Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?
Posted by Josh Tynjala <jo...@gmail.com>.
I have been using the latest nightlies to work on some projects, and things
look good to me.
- Josh
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 8/19/16, 1:41 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >> Should we wait for more reviews or create release candidates?
> >
> >IMO proof is in the eating rather than looking at the menu, time for a RC!
>
> I'm not sure what that means, but I believe it has been agreed upon that
> we are supposed to conduct as thorough a review of the nightly builds as
> would be done of the RC, because it is way more efficient to find a
> problem in the nightly than in the RC. Even the board has recommended
> such an approach, and for reviewing commits.
>
> So please, make a review of the latest nightly or of the commits since
> your last review of the nightly and let us know what you find.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
>
AW: AW: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of
September?
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
So what's the state on this?
Chris
________________________________
Von: omuppi1@gmail.com <om...@gmail.com> im Auftrag von OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>
Gesendet: Montag, 22. August 2016 10:34:15
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Cc: Harbs
Betreff: Re: AW: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?
On Aug 22, 2016 1:05 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <ch...@c-ware.de>
wrote:
>
> Ok ... so what's the current status on this? I was a little consumed
during the weekend, but I noticed some NPM related problems. Are they
resolved yet?
>
Not yet. Worked on it a little bit over the weekend. Still need to fix
the falcon bits.
Hopefully in the next couple of days...
Thanks,
Om
>
> Chris
>
> ________________________________
> Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
> Gesendet: Samstag, 20. August 2016 20:41:16
> An: harbs.lists@gmail.com; dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of
September?
>
> Aiui the method bodies are derived from openfl and look similar enough
that we should at least give credit in license. It is easy enough to add a
header too.
>
> Sent from my LG G3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
>
> ------ Original message------
> From: Harbs
> Date: Sat, Aug 20, 2016 11:19 AM
> To: dev@flex.apache.org;
> Subject:Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?
>
> It’s also not an exact copy of anything. I’d say it’s owned by Apache and
no need for anything else.
>
> FYI, I’m going to be off the grid for most of the week.
>
> On Aug 20, 2016, at 5:36 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> > When I look at Matrix.as it appears that Harbs added ASDoc.
>
Re: AW: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?
Posted by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Aug 22, 2016 1:05 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <ch...@c-ware.de>
wrote:
>
> Ok ... so what's the current status on this? I was a little consumed
during the weekend, but I noticed some NPM related problems. Are they
resolved yet?
>
Not yet. Worked on it a little bit over the weekend. Still need to fix
the falcon bits.
Hopefully in the next couple of days...
Thanks,
Om
>
> Chris
>
> ________________________________
> Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
> Gesendet: Samstag, 20. August 2016 20:41:16
> An: harbs.lists@gmail.com; dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of
September?
>
> Aiui the method bodies are derived from openfl and look similar enough
that we should at least give credit in license. It is easy enough to add a
header too.
>
> Sent from my LG G3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
>
> ------ Original message------
> From: Harbs
> Date: Sat, Aug 20, 2016 11:19 AM
> To: dev@flex.apache.org;
> Subject:Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?
>
> It’s also not an exact copy of anything. I’d say it’s owned by Apache and
no need for anything else.
>
> FYI, I’m going to be off the grid for most of the week.
>
> On Aug 20, 2016, at 5:36 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> > When I look at Matrix.as it appears that Harbs added ASDoc.
>
AW: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
Ok ... so what's the current status on this? I was a little consumed during the weekend, but I noticed some NPM related problems. Are they resolved yet?
Chris
________________________________
Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
Gesendet: Samstag, 20. August 2016 20:41:16
An: harbs.lists@gmail.com; dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?
Aiui the method bodies are derived from openfl and look similar enough that we should at least give credit in license. It is easy enough to add a header too.
Sent from my LG G3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
------ Original message------
From: Harbs
Date: Sat, Aug 20, 2016 11:19 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org;
Subject:Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?
It’s also not an exact copy of anything. I’d say it’s owned by Apache and no need for anything else.
FYI, I’m going to be off the grid for most of the week.
On Aug 20, 2016, at 5:36 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> When I look at Matrix.as it appears that Harbs added ASDoc.
Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Aiui the method bodies are derived from openfl and look similar enough that we should at least give credit in license. It is easy enough to add a header too.
Sent from my LG G3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
------ Original message------
From: Harbs
Date: Sat, Aug 20, 2016 11:19 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org;
Subject:Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?
It’s also not an exact copy of anything. I’d say it’s owned by Apache and no need for anything else.
FYI, I’m going to be off the grid for most of the week.
On Aug 20, 2016, at 5:36 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> When I look at Matrix.as it appears that Harbs added ASDoc.
Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
It’s also not an exact copy of anything. I’d say it’s owned by Apache and no need for anything else.
FYI, I’m going to be off the grid for most of the week.
On Aug 20, 2016, at 5:36 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> When I look at Matrix.as it appears that Harbs added ASDoc.
Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 8/20/16, 12:24 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> I saw some other projects put both headers in a file with mixed content.
>> I don't think it is worth trying to find every instance of mixed content
>> in our releases, but for Matrix and FlatUI it could make sense. What
>>are
>> your thoughts on that?
>
>Depends how much change has been made, an Apache header should not added
>and the the original license keep unless there have been significant
>changes. [1] (see 3,4 + 5)
When I look at Matrix.as it appears that Harbs added ASDoc. So, IMO there
is enough content that should be labelled as ASF-owned to have both
headers.
>
>> I don't know what lawyers would say, but IMO, a patch belongs to the
>> person doing the modifications.
>
>But I think you would agrees the patch file contains code that belongs to
>the original copyright owners and those license need be be respected.
No, I think you have not understood my argument from before. Patch files
almost always contain some code from prior committers and your logic would
dictate that some kinds of patches, like just deleting a line of code,
would not be owned by the modifier.
>I just notice the patch actually removes the original license which is
>probably not a valid thing to do. (see above)
>
>Why not be on the safe side and mention it the source LICENSE (as there's
>no harm done if it ever turns out they were not needed)? By not
>mentioning them it’s probably a licensing error. Unless you really think
>it worth a delay in asking asking legal discuss for clarification.
I believe what we have done is good enough so no plans to delay unless
other PMC members want to delay or have different opinions. IMO, an
externs file is not a port, it is a re-implementation as its functionality
and the way it implements functionality is significantly changed.
AIUI, the purpose of LICENSE and file headers are simply to provide
convenient signposts to consumers. Small details do not change the actual
licensing/copyright of a line of code. The purpose of this thread is to
see if enough PMC members have reviewed the packages and will vote +1
without wasting time sending out votes and canceling them when problems
are found.
I have updated the approval scripts to use the release branch. It would
be good for other PMC folks who plan to vote on the release to perform
their reviews as well and they can use the scripts is a convenience if
they want.
Get ApproveFlexJS.xml from the release branch of flex-asjs. Put it in a
new folder, run 'ant -e -f ApproveFlexJS.xml -Drelease.version=0.7.0'
Get ApproveFalcon.xml from the release branch of flex-falcon. Put it in a
new folder, run 'ant -e -f ApproveFalcon.xml -Drelease.version=0.7.0'
Thanks,
-Alex
>
>1. http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> I saw some other projects put both headers in a file with mixed content.
> I don't think it is worth trying to find every instance of mixed content
> in our releases, but for Matrix and FlatUI it could make sense. What are
> your thoughts on that?
Depends how much change has been made, an Apache header should not added and the the original license keep unless there have been significant changes. [1] (see 3,4 + 5)
> I don't know what lawyers would say, but IMO, a patch belongs to the
> person doing the modifications.
But I think you would agrees the patch file contains code that belongs to the original copyright owners and those license need be be respected. I just notice the patch actually removes the original license which is probably not a valid thing to do. (see above)
Why not be on the safe side and mention it the source LICENSE (as there's no harm done if it ever turns out they were not needed)? By not mentioning them it’s probably a licensing error. Unless you really think it worth a delay in asking asking legal discuss for clarification.
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
Re: AW: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of
September?
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
We are releasing everything. I believe Justin and I are agreeing that the falcon-only packages don't need review
The falconjx packages contain falcon.
Sent from my LG G3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
------ Original message------
From: Christofer Dutz
Date: Sat, Aug 20, 2016 1:19 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org;
Subject:AW: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?
But in jest to release Maven stuff we need a release of falcon to. I dud two-factor quit a lot of the structure there and falcon an falconjx are both part of the same Maven build.
Is there a reason for not releasing everything?
Chris
Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
Datum: 20.08.16 08:59 (GMT+01:00)
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?
Thanks for the timely review.
On 8/19/16, 4:58 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>For FlexJS:
>
>I can see that mention of OpenFL has been added to LICENSE, however the
>file in question [1] has an Apache license header (not MIT as I think it
>should be). We’re also not following the terms of it's MIT license [2] to
>include the copyright and full text of the license. Usually you add that
>as a pointer to the license file in the LICENSE [3] and / or leave the
>full text in the header.
>
>We also have the same issue with Flat UI i.e. missing the copyright and
>full text of the license.
I saw some other projects put both headers in a file with mixed content.
I don't think it is worth trying to find every instance of mixed content
in our releases, but for Matrix and FlatUI it could make sense. What are
your thoughts on that?
>
>For FalconJX:
>
>Seems odd to me that we have code by Robert Penner and Grant Skinner in
>the source release but only the binary release LICENSE mentions that. I
>know they are patch files but the I'd add them to the LICENSE file to be
>on the safe side. At worse case that’s just a documentation issue, but
>not having them in the source LICENSE could be a licensing error.
I don't know what lawyers would say, but IMO, a patch belongs to the
person doing the modifications. Otherwise, we'd get into some weird
nit-picking if someone submitted a patch where they deleted an unnecessary
line of code, we would say they didn't own the modification since all
content in the patch file would be stuff authored by others.
>
>Would be nice to see a bit more info in release notes to what has changed
>since the last version, I think users would want to know what changed in
>a bit more detail from the last release.
Looks like we're not going to cut an RC until Om fixes NPM so anyone who
has time to add more details is welcome to do so.
>
>We not making a release of Falcon right, just FalconJX?
Correct
-Alex
AW: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
But in jest to release Maven stuff we need a release of falcon to. I dud two-factor quit a lot of the structure there and falcon an falconjx are both part of the same Maven build.
Is there a reason for not releasing everything?
Chris
Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
Datum: 20.08.16 08:59 (GMT+01:00)
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?
Thanks for the timely review.
On 8/19/16, 4:58 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>For FlexJS:
>
>I can see that mention of OpenFL has been added to LICENSE, however the
>file in question [1] has an Apache license header (not MIT as I think it
>should be). We’re also not following the terms of it's MIT license [2] to
>include the copyright and full text of the license. Usually you add that
>as a pointer to the license file in the LICENSE [3] and / or leave the
>full text in the header.
>
>We also have the same issue with Flat UI i.e. missing the copyright and
>full text of the license.
I saw some other projects put both headers in a file with mixed content.
I don't think it is worth trying to find every instance of mixed content
in our releases, but for Matrix and FlatUI it could make sense. What are
your thoughts on that?
>
>For FalconJX:
>
>Seems odd to me that we have code by Robert Penner and Grant Skinner in
>the source release but only the binary release LICENSE mentions that. I
>know they are patch files but the I'd add them to the LICENSE file to be
>on the safe side. At worse case that’s just a documentation issue, but
>not having them in the source LICENSE could be a licensing error.
I don't know what lawyers would say, but IMO, a patch belongs to the
person doing the modifications. Otherwise, we'd get into some weird
nit-picking if someone submitted a patch where they deleted an unnecessary
line of code, we would say they didn't own the modification since all
content in the patch file would be stuff authored by others.
>
>Would be nice to see a bit more info in release notes to what has changed
>since the last version, I think users would want to know what changed in
>a bit more detail from the last release.
Looks like we're not going to cut an RC until Om fixes NPM so anyone who
has time to add more details is welcome to do so.
>
>We not making a release of Falcon right, just FalconJX?
Correct
-Alex
Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Thanks for the timely review.
On 8/19/16, 4:58 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>For FlexJS:
>
>I can see that mention of OpenFL has been added to LICENSE, however the
>file in question [1] has an Apache license header (not MIT as I think it
>should be). We’re also not following the terms of it's MIT license [2] to
>include the copyright and full text of the license. Usually you add that
>as a pointer to the license file in the LICENSE [3] and / or leave the
>full text in the header.
>
>We also have the same issue with Flat UI i.e. missing the copyright and
>full text of the license.
I saw some other projects put both headers in a file with mixed content.
I don't think it is worth trying to find every instance of mixed content
in our releases, but for Matrix and FlatUI it could make sense. What are
your thoughts on that?
>
>For FalconJX:
>
>Seems odd to me that we have code by Robert Penner and Grant Skinner in
>the source release but only the binary release LICENSE mentions that. I
>know they are patch files but the I'd add them to the LICENSE file to be
>on the safe side. At worse case that’s just a documentation issue, but
>not having them in the source LICENSE could be a licensing error.
I don't know what lawyers would say, but IMO, a patch belongs to the
person doing the modifications. Otherwise, we'd get into some weird
nit-picking if someone submitted a patch where they deleted an unnecessary
line of code, we would say they didn't own the modification since all
content in the patch file would be stuff authored by others.
>
>Would be nice to see a bit more info in release notes to what has changed
>since the last version, I think users would want to know what changed in
>a bit more detail from the last release.
Looks like we're not going to cut an RC until Om fixes NPM so anyone who
has time to add more details is welcome to do so.
>
>We not making a release of Falcon right, just FalconJX?
Correct
-Alex
Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
For FlexJS:
I can see that mention of OpenFL has been added to LICENSE, however the file in question [1] has an Apache license header (not MIT as I think it should be). We’re also not following the terms of it's MIT license [2] to include the copyright and full text of the license. Usually you add that as a pointer to the license file in the LICENSE [3] and / or leave the full text in the header.
We also have the same issue with Flat UI i.e. missing the copyright and full text of the license.
For FalconJX:
Seems odd to me that we have code by Robert Penner and Grant Skinner in the source release but only the binary release LICENSE mentions that. I know they are patch files but the I'd add them to the LICENSE file to be on the safe side. At worse case that’s just a documentation issue, but not having them in the source LICENSE could be a licensing error.
We’re also missing the full text of the BSD license (as required by it terms) for svg.js in the binary release.
For both:
Some of the example app.xml files have "Copyright 2015 The Apache Software Foundation” that probably should be updated.
Would be nice to see a bit more info in release notes to what has changed since the last version, I think users would want to know what changed in a bit more detail from the last release.
We not making a release of Falcon right, just FalconJX?
Thanks,
Justin
1. frameworks/projects/Core/src/main/flex/org/apache/flex/geom/Matrix.as
2. https://github.com/openfl/openfl/blob/develop/LICENSE.md
3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> I'm not sure what that means, but I believe it has been agreed upon that
> we are supposed to conduct as thorough a review of the nightly builds as
> would be done of the RC
Has any other PMC member reviewed the latest or a recent nightly?
Thanks,
Justin
Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 8/19/16, 1:41 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Should we wait for more reviews or create release candidates?
>
>IMO proof is in the eating rather than looking at the menu, time for a RC!
I'm not sure what that means, but I believe it has been agreed upon that
we are supposed to conduct as thorough a review of the nightly builds as
would be done of the RC, because it is way more efficient to find a
problem in the nightly than in the RC. Even the board has recommended
such an approach, and for reviewing commits.
So please, make a review of the latest nightly or of the commits since
your last review of the nightly and let us know what you find.
Thanks,
-Alex
Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Should we wait for more reviews or create release candidates?
IMO proof is in the eating rather than looking at the menu, time for a RC!
Justin
Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Release branches have been created. I haven't hooked them up to CI.
Should we wait for more reviews or create release candidates?
-Alex
On 8/18/16, 9:57 AM, "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>+1.
>
>I think now would be a good time to cut a release branch.
>
>On Aug 18, 2016, at 6:40 PM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
>wrote:
>
>> Perhaps it would be a good idea to start with release branches this
>>time.
>
Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
+1.
I think now would be a good time to cut a release branch.
On Aug 18, 2016, at 6:40 PM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
> Perhaps it would be a good idea to start with release branches this time.
AW: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
Hi Alex,
the source package we should vote on will be the Ant one. That's the reason for me preparing a Maven release before the Ant. This way you can checkout the Released version (with release versions in the poms). Perhaps it would be a good idea to start with release branches this time.
Chris
________________________________
Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. August 2016 16:56:46
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?
On 8/18/16, 4:40 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>
>as I mentioned a few days ago, I will be having a talk on FlexJS in
>Hamburg on 08.09.2016 (http://programmplaner.solutions.hamburg/#/).
>
>
>I hope we will be able to ship a new version with the Maven support till
>then? Do you think that's possible? What are we missing?
>
>
>I would suggest that I stage a Maven release and you do an Ant release
>based on the Maven Release Tag. Maven does two commits during a release:
>1. change the version number to the release version, 2. Change the
>version to the next development version. It tags the commit number 1
>automatically. So if you would do an Ant release from that state, the
>version number should be consistent. The only thing we would need to do
>is merge both ends back together, but that shouldn't be an issue as the
>files touched during an Ant release should be different than those of a
>Maven release.
>
>
>The only thing I would need to do before that, would be to prepare 1.0.0
>releases of the build-helper-maven plugin and the little jburg-types jar.
>I could initiate this any time.
I asked this in a different thread, but where is the source package for
the official vote? From the Ant or Maven builds? I have not checked the
Maven builds. If the plan is to use the Ant builds for the source
package, then your plan sounds fine to me.
AFAIK, I am just waiting on one more check-in from Peter on the examples.
It would be great to get Justin's thumbs up before starting the vote, or
we can just gamble that we've addressed all of his earlier issues.
Thoughts?
-Alex
Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 8/18/16, 4:40 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>
>as I mentioned a few days ago, I will be having a talk on FlexJS in
>Hamburg on 08.09.2016 (http://programmplaner.solutions.hamburg/#/).
>
>
>I hope we will be able to ship a new version with the Maven support till
>then? Do you think that's possible? What are we missing?
>
>
>I would suggest that I stage a Maven release and you do an Ant release
>based on the Maven Release Tag. Maven does two commits during a release:
>1. change the version number to the release version, 2. Change the
>version to the next development version. It tags the commit number 1
>automatically. So if you would do an Ant release from that state, the
>version number should be consistent. The only thing we would need to do
>is merge both ends back together, but that shouldn't be an issue as the
>files touched during an Ant release should be different than those of a
>Maven release.
>
>
>The only thing I would need to do before that, would be to prepare 1.0.0
>releases of the build-helper-maven plugin and the little jburg-types jar.
>I could initiate this any time.
I asked this in a different thread, but where is the source package for
the official vote? From the Ant or Maven builds? I have not checked the
Maven builds. If the plan is to use the Ant builds for the source
package, then your plan sounds fine to me.
AFAIK, I am just waiting on one more check-in from Peter on the examples.
It would be great to get Justin's thumbs up before starting the vote, or
we can just gamble that we've addressed all of his earlier issues.
Thoughts?
-Alex