You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> on 2016/09/05 14:39:16 UTC
[VOTE] Release Apache Flex FalconJX 0.7.0 RC1
Hi,
This is vote for the 0.7.0 release of the FalconJX (and Falcon)
compilers. There is no separate Falcon-only release package at
this time. The only purpose of the FalconJX packages are to serve as
upstream packages for the FlexJS release.
The release candidate can be found here;
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/falcon/0.7.0/rc1/
Before voting please review the section, 'What are the ASF requirements on
approving a release?', at:
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
At a minimum you would be expected to check that:
- MD5 and signed packages are correct
- README, RELEASE_NOTES, NOTICE and LICENSE files are all fine
- That the build script completes successfully
- That you can compile using the results of building the source package
The source package is set up the same way as the repo. This means that
the results of the build are not the same as the binary package. The
compiled source package can be used to build FlexJS apps via the command
line and Ant, but not in Flash Builder or other IDEs. You can test the source
package by building it, then pointing to it from the source package of the
FlexJS release candidate and building the examples in the FlexJS package.
The binary package is set up as an upstream package for the FlexJS
release. The most convenient way to use the binary package is to install
a FlexJS SDK via Ant or the Installer.
Please vote to approve this release:
+1 Approve the release
-1 Veto the release (please provide specific comments to why)
This vote will be open for 72 hours or until a result can be called.
The vote passes if there is:
- At least 3 +1 votes from the PMC
- More positive votes than negative votes
Remember that this is a 'beta-quality' release so there
will be many bugs found. The goal is not to try to find and fix bugs
in the RC, but to make sure we have the packaging right, and enough
functionality that folks will have some success trying to use it.
People who are not in PMC are also encouraged to test out the release and
vote, although their votes will not be binding, they can influence how the
PMC votes.
When voting please indicate what OS, IDE, Flash Player version and AIR
version you tested with.
Please put all discussion about this release in the DISCUSSION thread not
this VOTE thread.
For your convenience there is an ant script that automates the common
steps to validate a release. Instead of individually downloading the
package and signature files, unzipping, etc, you can instead:
1) create an empty folder,
2) download into that folder this file:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/falcon/0.7.0/rc1/ApproveFalcon.xml
3) run the script: ant -e -f ApproveFalcon.xml -Drelease.version=0.7.0 -Drc=1
You are not required to use this script, and more testing of the packages
and build results are always encouraged.
Thanks,
Alex Harui
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex FalconJX 0.7.0 RC1
Posted by Peter Ent <pe...@adobe.com>.
+1 Binding
Package
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/falcon/0.7.0/rc1/apache-flex-fa
lconjx-0.7.0-src.tar.gz
Java 1.7
OS: Mac OS X x86_64 10.11.6
Source kit signatures match: y
Source kit builds: y
README is ok: y
README_JX is ok: y
RELEASE_NOTES is ok: y
RELEASE_NOTES_JX is ok: y
NOTICE is ok: y
LICENSE is ok: y
No unapproved licenses or archives in source package: y
No unapproved binaries in source package: y
Package
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/falcon/0.7.0/rc1/binaries/apach
e-flex-falconjx-0.7.0-bin.tar.gz
Binary kit signatures match: y
NOTICE is ok: y
LICENSE is ok: y
No unapproved licenses or files in jars: y
No unapproved licenses or archives in binary package: y
No unapproved binaries in binary package: y
Peter Ent
Adobe Systems/Apache Flex Project
On 9/5/16, 10:39 AM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>This is vote for the 0.7.0 release of the FalconJX (and Falcon)
>compilers. There is no separate Falcon-only release package at
>this time. The only purpose of the FalconJX packages are to serve as
>upstream packages for the FlexJS release.
>
>The release candidate can be found here;
>https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/falcon/0.7.0/rc1/
>
>Before voting please review the section, 'What are the ASF requirements on
>approving a release?', at:
>http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
>
>At a minimum you would be expected to check that:
>- MD5 and signed packages are correct
>- README, RELEASE_NOTES, NOTICE and LICENSE files are all fine
>- That the build script completes successfully
>- That you can compile using the results of building the source package
>
>The source package is set up the same way as the repo. This means that
>the results of the build are not the same as the binary package. The
>compiled source package can be used to build FlexJS apps via the command
>line and Ant, but not in Flash Builder or other IDEs. You can test the
>source
>package by building it, then pointing to it from the source package of the
>FlexJS release candidate and building the examples in the FlexJS package.
>
>The binary package is set up as an upstream package for the FlexJS
>release. The most convenient way to use the binary package is to install
>a FlexJS SDK via Ant or the Installer.
>
>Please vote to approve this release:
>+1 Approve the release
>-1 Veto the release (please provide specific comments to why)
>
>This vote will be open for 72 hours or until a result can be called.
>
>The vote passes if there is:
>- At least 3 +1 votes from the PMC
>- More positive votes than negative votes
>
>Remember that this is a 'beta-quality' release so there
>will be many bugs found. The goal is not to try to find and fix bugs
>in the RC, but to make sure we have the packaging right, and enough
>functionality that folks will have some success trying to use it.
>
>People who are not in PMC are also encouraged to test out the release and
>vote, although their votes will not be binding, they can influence how the
>PMC votes.
>
>When voting please indicate what OS, IDE, Flash Player version and AIR
>version you tested with.
>
>Please put all discussion about this release in the DISCUSSION thread not
>this VOTE thread.
>
>For your convenience there is an ant script that automates the common
>steps to validate a release. Instead of individually downloading the
>package and signature files, unzipping, etc, you can instead:
>1) create an empty folder,
>2) download into that folder this file:
>https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/falcon/0.7.0/rc1/ApproveFalcon
>.xml
>3) run the script: ant -e -f ApproveFalcon.xml -Drelease.version=0.7.0
>-Drc=1
>
>You are not required to use this script, and more testing of the packages
>and build results are always encouraged.
>
>Thanks,
>Alex Harui
AW: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex FalconJX 0.7.0 RC1
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
+1 (binding)
Package https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/falcon/0.7.0/rc1/apache-flex-falconjx-0.7.0-src.tar.gz
Java 1.7
OS: Mac OS X x86_64 10.11.6
Source kit signatures match: y
Source kit builds: y
README is ok: y
README_JX is ok: y
RELEASE_NOTES is ok: y
RELEASE_NOTES_JX is ok: y
NOTICE is ok: y
LICENSE is ok: y
No unapproved licenses or archives in source package: y
No unapproved binaries in source package: y
Package https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/falcon/0.7.0/rc1/binaries/apache-flex-falconjx-0.7.0-bin.tar.gz
Binary kit signatures match: y
NOTICE is ok: y
LICENSE is ok: y
No unapproved licenses or files in jars: y
No unapproved licenses or archives in binary package: y
No unapproved binaries in binary package: y
________________________________
Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 7. September 2016 01:25:59
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex FalconJX 0.7.0 RC1
On 9/6/16, 4:10 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> I believe Justin is concerned about how, when we generate the externs
>> files for CreateJs by hacking their source code, that the resulting
>> externs file no longer contains the CreateJS header.
>
>Correct.
>
>> It is my understanding that the externs file is not a port of existing
>> implementations, but rather, a new "implementation" as well as generated
>> code so retaining the CreateJS header is not required and in fact, this
>> derivative work is entirely owned by the ASF.
>
>Have you checked your opinion holds water on legal discuss? Oracle (for
>one) currently thinks otherwise and has been dragging Android though the
>courts for years over a very similar issue (although it look likely they
>will not prevail).
Android won. I want FlexJS to win too, by shipping a release and not
dragging the community through unnecessary legal nit-picking.
>
>Also this is not a clean room implementation [1] but one generated by
>applying patches to the original 3rd party licensed code so I would
>rather err on the side of caution and leave the header in. Even if that
>is not required it not a licensing error to do so (and no harm done) and
>omitting may be an issue and could (though unlikely) have risks.
I'm pretty sure I have it right, but I'm ok with unlikely risks. If we
get it wrong, or Oracle wins later, we'll change the package for the next
release. Meanwhile, let's ship a release now.
Thanks,
-Alex
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex FalconJX 0.7.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 9/6/16, 4:10 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> I believe Justin is concerned about how, when we generate the externs
>> files for CreateJs by hacking their source code, that the resulting
>> externs file no longer contains the CreateJS header.
>
>Correct.
>
>> It is my understanding that the externs file is not a port of existing
>> implementations, but rather, a new "implementation" as well as generated
>> code so retaining the CreateJS header is not required and in fact, this
>> derivative work is entirely owned by the ASF.
>
>Have you checked your opinion holds water on legal discuss? Oracle (for
>one) currently thinks otherwise and has been dragging Android though the
>courts for years over a very similar issue (although it look likely they
>will not prevail).
Android won. I want FlexJS to win too, by shipping a release and not
dragging the community through unnecessary legal nit-picking.
>
>Also this is not a clean room implementation [1] but one generated by
>applying patches to the original 3rd party licensed code so I would
>rather err on the side of caution and leave the header in. Even if that
>is not required it not a licensing error to do so (and no harm done) and
>omitting may be an issue and could (though unlikely) have risks.
I'm pretty sure I have it right, but I'm ok with unlikely risks. If we
get it wrong, or Oracle wins later, we'll change the package for the next
release. Meanwhile, let's ship a release now.
Thanks,
-Alex
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex FalconJX 0.7.0 RC1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> I believe Justin is concerned about how, when we generate the externs
> files for CreateJs by hacking their source code, that the resulting
> externs file no longer contains the CreateJS header.
Correct.
> It is my understanding that the externs file is not a port of existing
> implementations, but rather, a new "implementation" as well as generated
> code so retaining the CreateJS header is not required and in fact, this
> derivative work is entirely owned by the ASF.
Have you checked your opinion holds water on legal discuss? Oracle (for one) currently thinks otherwise and has been dragging Android though the courts for years over a very similar issue (although it look likely they will not prevail).
Also this is not a clean room implementation [1] but one generated by applying patches to the original 3rd party licensed code so I would rather err on the side of caution and leave the header in. Even if that is not required it not a licensing error to do so (and no harm done) and omitting may be an issue and could (though unlikely) have risks.
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex FalconJX 0.7.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 9/6/16, 12:17 PM, "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I don’t believe headers were removed from any file. What file are you
>referring to?
I believe Justin is concerned about how, when we generate the externs
files for CreateJs by hacking their source code, that the resulting
externs file no longer contains the CreateJS header. It is my
understanding that the externs file is not a port of existing
implementations, but rather, a new "implementation" as well as generated
code so retaining the CreateJS header is not required and in fact, this
derivative work is entirely owned by the ASF. Every line of non-API code
was determined by ASF committers because we stripped out any actual
working code in order to conform to externs format.
-Alex
>
>On Sep 6, 2016, at 5:44 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Sorry but it’s -1 binding as removing the license header on a 3rd party
>>file is against ASF legal policy.
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex FalconJX 0.7.0 RC1
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
I don’t believe headers were removed from any file. What file are you referring to?
On Sep 6, 2016, at 5:44 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Sorry but it’s -1 binding as removing the license header on a 3rd party file is against ASF legal policy.
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex FalconJX 0.7.0 RC1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
Sorry but it’s -1 binding as removing the license header on a 3rd party file is against ASF legal policy. [1] If this instance can be shown to acceptable within ASF policy and/or good reason given for its removal quite happy to change my vote to +1 for this RC. Would also change my vote to +1 if the header was left intact.
Just to reminder that a -1 is not a veto, a release only needs 3 +1 and more +1s than -1s to be made a release. People can keep voting and people can change their votes at any time, including those who previously voted +1.
I checked:
- signatures and hashed good
- LICENSE and NOTICE ok
- all source files have ASF headers
- no unexpected binary files in source release
- can compile from source with ant
- tests pass
I did a quick check on the connivance binary release and couldn’t see any obvious issues.
Thanks,
Justin
1.http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex FalconJX 0.7.0 RC1
Posted by Josh Tynjala <jo...@gmail.com>.
+1 binding
Package
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/falcon/0.7.0/rc1/apache-flex-falconjx-0.7.0-src.tar.gz
Java 1.8
OS: Mac OS X x86_64 10.11.6
Source kit signatures match: y
Source kit builds: y
README is ok: y
README_JX is ok: y
RELEASE_NOTES is ok: y
RELEASE_NOTES_JX is ok: y
NOTICE is ok: y
LICENSE is ok: y
No unapproved licenses or archives in source package: y
No unapproved binaries in source package: y
Package
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/falcon/0.7.0/rc1/binaries/apache-flex-falconjx-0.7.0-bin.tar.gz
Binary kit signatures match: y
NOTICE is ok: y
LICENSE is ok: y
No unapproved licenses or files in jars: y
No unapproved licenses or archives in binary package: y
No unapproved binaries in binary package: y
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is vote for the 0.7.0 release of the FalconJX (and Falcon)
> compilers. There is no separate Falcon-only release package at
> this time. The only purpose of the FalconJX packages are to serve as
> upstream packages for the FlexJS release.
>
> The release candidate can be found here;
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/falcon/0.7.0/rc1/
>
> Before voting please review the section, 'What are the ASF requirements on
> approving a release?', at:
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
>
> At a minimum you would be expected to check that:
> - MD5 and signed packages are correct
> - README, RELEASE_NOTES, NOTICE and LICENSE files are all fine
> - That the build script completes successfully
> - That you can compile using the results of building the source package
>
> The source package is set up the same way as the repo. This means that
> the results of the build are not the same as the binary package. The
> compiled source package can be used to build FlexJS apps via the command
> line and Ant, but not in Flash Builder or other IDEs. You can test the
> source
> package by building it, then pointing to it from the source package of the
> FlexJS release candidate and building the examples in the FlexJS package.
>
> The binary package is set up as an upstream package for the FlexJS
> release. The most convenient way to use the binary package is to install
> a FlexJS SDK via Ant or the Installer.
>
> Please vote to approve this release:
> +1 Approve the release
> -1 Veto the release (please provide specific comments to why)
>
> This vote will be open for 72 hours or until a result can be called.
>
> The vote passes if there is:
> - At least 3 +1 votes from the PMC
> - More positive votes than negative votes
>
> Remember that this is a 'beta-quality' release so there
> will be many bugs found. The goal is not to try to find and fix bugs
> in the RC, but to make sure we have the packaging right, and enough
> functionality that folks will have some success trying to use it.
>
> People who are not in PMC are also encouraged to test out the release and
> vote, although their votes will not be binding, they can influence how the
> PMC votes.
>
> When voting please indicate what OS, IDE, Flash Player version and AIR
> version you tested with.
>
> Please put all discussion about this release in the DISCUSSION thread not
> this VOTE thread.
>
> For your convenience there is an ant script that automates the common
> steps to validate a release. Instead of individually downloading the
> package and signature files, unzipping, etc, you can instead:
> 1) create an empty folder,
> 2) download into that folder this file:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/falcon/0.7.0/
> rc1/ApproveFalcon.xml
> 3) run the script: ant -e -f ApproveFalcon.xml -Drelease.version=0.7.0
> -Drc=1
>
> You are not required to use this script, and more testing of the packages
> and build results are always encouraged.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex Harui
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex FalconJX 0.7.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
+1
Package
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/falcon/0.7.0/rc1/apache-flex-fa
lconjx-0.7.0-src.tar.gz
Java 1.7
OS: Mac OS X x86_64 10.9.5
Source kit signatures match: y
Source kit builds: y
README is ok: y
README_JX is ok: y
RELEASE_NOTES is ok: y
RELEASE_NOTES_JX is ok: y
NOTICE is ok: y
LICENSE is ok: y
No unapproved licenses or archives in source package: y
No unapproved binaries in source package: y
Package
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/falcon/0.7.0/rc1/binaries/apach
e-flex-falconjx-0.7.0-bin.tar.gz
Binary kit signatures match: y
NOTICE is ok: y
LICENSE is ok: y
No unapproved licenses or files in jars: y
No unapproved licenses or archives in binary package: y
No unapproved binaries in binary package: y
On 9/5/16, 7:39 AM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>This is vote for the 0.7.0 release of the FalconJX (and Falcon)
>compilers. There is no separate Falcon-only release package at
>this time. The only purpose of the FalconJX packages are to serve as
>upstream packages for the FlexJS release.
>
>The release candidate can be found here;
>https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/falcon/0.7.0/rc1/
>
>Before voting please review the section, 'What are the ASF requirements on
>approving a release?', at:
>http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
>
>At a minimum you would be expected to check that:
>- MD5 and signed packages are correct
>- README, RELEASE_NOTES, NOTICE and LICENSE files are all fine
>- That the build script completes successfully
>- That you can compile using the results of building the source package
>
>The source package is set up the same way as the repo. This means that
>the results of the build are not the same as the binary package. The
>compiled source package can be used to build FlexJS apps via the command
>line and Ant, but not in Flash Builder or other IDEs. You can test the
>source
>package by building it, then pointing to it from the source package of the
>FlexJS release candidate and building the examples in the FlexJS package.
>
>The binary package is set up as an upstream package for the FlexJS
>release. The most convenient way to use the binary package is to install
>a FlexJS SDK via Ant or the Installer.
>
>Please vote to approve this release:
>+1 Approve the release
>-1 Veto the release (please provide specific comments to why)
>
>This vote will be open for 72 hours or until a result can be called.
>
>The vote passes if there is:
>- At least 3 +1 votes from the PMC
>- More positive votes than negative votes
>
>Remember that this is a 'beta-quality' release so there
>will be many bugs found. The goal is not to try to find and fix bugs
>in the RC, but to make sure we have the packaging right, and enough
>functionality that folks will have some success trying to use it.
>
>People who are not in PMC are also encouraged to test out the release and
>vote, although their votes will not be binding, they can influence how the
>PMC votes.
>
>When voting please indicate what OS, IDE, Flash Player version and AIR
>version you tested with.
>
>Please put all discussion about this release in the DISCUSSION thread not
>this VOTE thread.
>
>For your convenience there is an ant script that automates the common
>steps to validate a release. Instead of individually downloading the
>package and signature files, unzipping, etc, you can instead:
>1) create an empty folder,
>2) download into that folder this file:
>https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/falcon/0.7.0/rc1/ApproveFalcon
>.xml
>3) run the script: ant -e -f ApproveFalcon.xml -Drelease.version=0.7.0
>-Drc=1
>
>You are not required to use this script, and more testing of the packages
>and build results are always encouraged.
>
>Thanks,
>Alex Harui