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 14:39:25 UTC
[DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.7.0 RC1
This is the discussion thread.
Thanks,
Alex Harui
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.7.0 RC1
Posted by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>.
Justin,
We don't have to fix every issue during a release. Please file a JIRA
ticket so that we can fix this in the next release.
Thanks,
Om
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > While you are technically correct, I'd still ship this RC.
>
> So you’re advocating ignoring the terms of a 3rd party license and
> ignoring ASF policy on releases?
>
> I’ll let Chris speak for himself but I’m sure he can use a snapshot /
> nightly release for this talk so I don’t think here’s no real need for
> expediency here.
>
> > For the FlatUI bundle, I did not see an MIT License in their repo.
>
> If it is MIT licensed then you need as per the terms of the license to add
> the copyright and text of the licenses. It’s also ASF legal and release
> policy. If you want an exception you would probably need to ask VP legal
> before making an release. I've seen that been granted (usually as a one
> off) in the past.
>
> > We could cut another RC with the part of the OpenFL license that applies
> > copied into our LICENSE and have a short vote on it.
>
> +1 to that plus adding FlatUI license text. Given the changes would be
> minimal from the last RC I can’t see the vote taking much time and existing
> votes carrying over.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
AW: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.7.0 RC1
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
Hi gu
Hire about this option: we ship the release and address this issue with asf legal to settle this discussion once and for all.
I understand Justin's point. On the other side I understand you guys, that want to get stuff out the door. I don't understand your continued objections to Justin's findings however. If I didn't understand it wrong, he is suggesting to add a mention of the license and to keep the headers in tact. What harm would there be done by this? So let's just do it in "develop", but release 0.7.0 now.
Justin you are right, I could do my talk without, but being able to say "released yesterday" or "today" would be valuable help in getting people to look at it.
Chris
Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
Datum: 07.09.16 07:21 (GMT+01:00)
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.7.0 RC1
Agreed.
I’m not even convinced we need the mention of the MIT license for OpenFL (there was no verbatim code copied). Even if we do mention it, including the full license text is not a release blocker and can be treated as a bug for the next release.
On Sep 7, 2016, at 2:21 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> I’ll let Chris speak for himself but I’m sure he can use a snapshot /
>> nightly release for this talk so I don’t think here’s no real need for
>> expediency here.
>
> Sure, there are alternatives. But IMO the community is best served by
> delivering a release for his talk. We have given every opportunity for
> folks to help make this happen. We can still make it happen. You have
> your opinion. We'll see what the other PMC members want to do. I
> encourage them to vote +1.
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.7.0 RC1
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
Agreed.
I’m not even convinced we need the mention of the MIT license for OpenFL (there was no verbatim code copied). Even if we do mention it, including the full license text is not a release blocker and can be treated as a bug for the next release.
On Sep 7, 2016, at 2:21 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> I’ll let Chris speak for himself but I’m sure he can use a snapshot /
>> nightly release for this talk so I don’t think here’s no real need for
>> expediency here.
>
> Sure, there are alternatives. But IMO the community is best served by
> delivering a release for his talk. We have given every opportunity for
> folks to help make this happen. We can still make it happen. You have
> your opinion. We'll see what the other PMC members want to do. I
> encourage them to vote +1.
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.7.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 9/6/16, 3:54 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> While you are technically correct, I'd still ship this RC.
>
>So you’re advocating ignoring the terms of a 3rd party license and
>ignoring ASF policy on releases?
I'm not ignoring the policy. The policy states: "assuming that said
license applies uniformly to all files" which isn't the case for the
snippets we borrowed from OpenFL.
>
>I’ll let Chris speak for himself but I’m sure he can use a snapshot /
>nightly release for this talk so I don’t think here’s no real need for
>expediency here.
Sure, there are alternatives. But IMO the community is best served by
delivering a release for his talk. We have given every opportunity for
folks to help make this happen. We can still make it happen. You have
your opinion. We'll see what the other PMC members want to do. I
encourage them to vote +1.
>
>> For the FlatUI bundle, I did not see an MIT License in their repo.
>
>If it is MIT licensed then you need as per the terms of the license to
>add the copyright and text of the licenses. It’s also ASF legal and
>release policy. If you want an exception you would probably need to ask
>VP legal before making an release. I've seen that been granted (usually
>as a one off) in the past.
The upstream dependency did not handle the license correctly, otherwise
there would be a version we could copy from their repo. It isn't our job
to fix that. Nor was it to fix the missing NOTICE from Google Closure. I
can't see any bad thing happening from shipping what we have. The code
will be under MIT license either way. I doubt anybody will try to jump
through that hole.
-Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.7.0 RC1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> While you are technically correct, I'd still ship this RC.
So you’re advocating ignoring the terms of a 3rd party license and ignoring ASF policy on releases?
I’ll let Chris speak for himself but I’m sure he can use a snapshot / nightly release for this talk so I don’t think here’s no real need for expediency here.
> For the FlatUI bundle, I did not see an MIT License in their repo.
If it is MIT licensed then you need as per the terms of the license to add the copyright and text of the licenses. It’s also ASF legal and release policy. If you want an exception you would probably need to ask VP legal before making an release. I've seen that been granted (usually as a one off) in the past.
> We could cut another RC with the part of the OpenFL license that applies
> copied into our LICENSE and have a short vote on it.
+1 to that plus adding FlatUI license text. Given the changes would be minimal from the last RC I can’t see the vote taking much time and existing votes carrying over.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.7.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 9/6/16, 7:41 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>-1 (binding). The LICENSE file mentions 2 MIT licensed pieces of software
>but we are not including the copyright or text of the respective MIT
>license as required by terms of the MIT license. [1] Normally in a source
>release you would add a local file pointer to the full text in LICENSE
>[2]. I would vote +1 on another RC if there pointer to the full MIT
>license text added.
>
>For info on ASF policy and why I voted -1 see [3] ("meet all requirements
>of ASF policy”) [4] (“Every ASF release MUST comply with ASF licensing
>policy") and [5] ("The component license itself MUST either be appended
>or else stored elsewhere in the package”).
>
While you are technically correct, I'd still ship this RC. I'd rather get
the bits on the mirrors for Chris's talk. The providers of the MIT
software have been mentioned in LICENSE, so they have been given
attribution, just not as perfectly as one might like.
For the FlatUI bundle, I did not see an MIT License in their repo. It
doesn't really make sense to me to just place a copy of the vanilla MIT
license to satisfy this technicality.
For the OpenFL source derivation, the file we borrowed snippets from does
not have a header, and since we didn't copy all of their code, we don't
want to copy their LICENSE verbatim as it mentions things that we didn't
copy.
We could cut another RC with the part of the OpenFL license that applies
copied into our LICENSE and have a short vote on it. I've pushed that
change in case we want to go that way (and added a blurb into Matrix.as
since there is no header to copy), but, I'm fine with going with RC1 since
we know that we'll pick up this change in the next release. What do
others want to do?
-Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.7.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Everything looks ok to me now. Thanks for sticking with it.
The mirrors will take up to 24 hours to propagate these changes so some
folks may not have this file if they install today.
-Alex
On 9/9/16, 11:44 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Alright, I gave it another try with the temp directory, and when I extract
>the packaged binary, I see 0.7.0 in the pom.xml. I think it's good this
>time.
>
>- Josh
>
>On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> Ah, I did mess up the instructions. Instead of unzipping the old package
>> into "out" you have to have a new "temp" folder and unzip it into there,
>> and then the zip and tar targets will stick the binaries in "out".
>>
>> Sorry for the bad info earlier,
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 9/9/16, 10:46 AM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi Josh,
>> >
>> >I updated SVN and unzipped the binary, and compared it. More seems to
>> >have changed than I think should have. Pom.xml files are referencing
>> >0.8.0-SNAPSHOT, for example. Maybe the ant steps I gave injected newer
>> >stuff, not sure. Can you verify what I'm seeing in case I did
>>something
>> >wrong?
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >-Alex
>> >
>> >On 9/9/16, 10:05 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Okay, I'll leave installer.xml as-is. I just committed the new
>>binaries
>> >>with the missing file restored to the dist SVN.
>> >>
>> >>- Josh
>> >>
>> >>On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 9/9/16, 9:51 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >Okay, I think I have everything set up properly, and I'm ready to
>> >>>commit
>> >>> >the updated binaries to SVN. However, as a final test just to be
>>sure,
>> >>>I
>> >>> >tried to extract the new binary and manually run ant -f
>>installer.xml.
>> >>> >Unfortunately, it failed. I noticed that installer.xml still
>> >>>references
>> >>> >0.6.0, so it was trying to download the wrong files:
>> >>> >
>> >>> ><property name="flexjs.version" value="0.6.0"/>
>> >>> ><property name="falcon.version" value="0.6.0"/>
>> >>>
>> >>> Yes, we didn't catch that during the vote and that was fouling up
>>the
>> >>> Installer as well. I found a workaround for the Installer, but not
>> >>>Ant.
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >If I manually change them to 0.7.0, the installation script
>>finishes
>> >>> >successfully. Should I update those values too, before I upload?
>> >>>
>> >>> Technically, no, because then that modified source file isn't in an
>> >>> approved source package, but IMO, it wouldn't be the end of the
>>world
>> >>>if
>> >>> you did. I don't know how many folks install using Ant, but I
>>think it
>> >>>is
>> >>> very few, and those Ant users should be able to get past this by
>>using:
>> >>>
>> >>> ant -f installer.xml -Dflexjs.version=0.7.0 -Dfalcon.version=0.7.0
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> So if I were doing it, I wouldn't change installer.xml, but you are
>> >>>doing
>> >>> the work so it is up to you.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> -Alex
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.7.0 RC1
Posted by Josh Tynjala <jo...@gmail.com>.
Alright, I gave it another try with the temp directory, and when I extract
the packaged binary, I see 0.7.0 in the pom.xml. I think it's good this
time.
- Josh
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Ah, I did mess up the instructions. Instead of unzipping the old package
> into "out" you have to have a new "temp" folder and unzip it into there,
> and then the zip and tar targets will stick the binaries in "out".
>
> Sorry for the bad info earlier,
>
> -Alex
>
> On 9/9/16, 10:46 AM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi Josh,
> >
> >I updated SVN and unzipped the binary, and compared it. More seems to
> >have changed than I think should have. Pom.xml files are referencing
> >0.8.0-SNAPSHOT, for example. Maybe the ant steps I gave injected newer
> >stuff, not sure. Can you verify what I'm seeing in case I did something
> >wrong?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >-Alex
> >
> >On 9/9/16, 10:05 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Okay, I'll leave installer.xml as-is. I just committed the new binaries
> >>with the missing file restored to the dist SVN.
> >>
> >>- Josh
> >>
> >>On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 9/9/16, 9:51 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >Okay, I think I have everything set up properly, and I'm ready to
> >>>commit
> >>> >the updated binaries to SVN. However, as a final test just to be sure,
> >>>I
> >>> >tried to extract the new binary and manually run ant -f installer.xml.
> >>> >Unfortunately, it failed. I noticed that installer.xml still
> >>>references
> >>> >0.6.0, so it was trying to download the wrong files:
> >>> >
> >>> ><property name="flexjs.version" value="0.6.0"/>
> >>> ><property name="falcon.version" value="0.6.0"/>
> >>>
> >>> Yes, we didn't catch that during the vote and that was fouling up the
> >>> Installer as well. I found a workaround for the Installer, but not
> >>>Ant.
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> >If I manually change them to 0.7.0, the installation script finishes
> >>> >successfully. Should I update those values too, before I upload?
> >>>
> >>> Technically, no, because then that modified source file isn't in an
> >>> approved source package, but IMO, it wouldn't be the end of the world
> >>>if
> >>> you did. I don't know how many folks install using Ant, but I think it
> >>>is
> >>> very few, and those Ant users should be able to get past this by using:
> >>>
> >>> ant -f installer.xml -Dflexjs.version=0.7.0 -Dfalcon.version=0.7.0
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> So if I were doing it, I wouldn't change installer.xml, but you are
> >>>doing
> >>> the work so it is up to you.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> -Alex
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.7.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Ah, I did mess up the instructions. Instead of unzipping the old package
into "out" you have to have a new "temp" folder and unzip it into there,
and then the zip and tar targets will stick the binaries in "out".
Sorry for the bad info earlier,
-Alex
On 9/9/16, 10:46 AM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>Hi Josh,
>
>I updated SVN and unzipped the binary, and compared it. More seems to
>have changed than I think should have. Pom.xml files are referencing
>0.8.0-SNAPSHOT, for example. Maybe the ant steps I gave injected newer
>stuff, not sure. Can you verify what I'm seeing in case I did something
>wrong?
>
>Thanks,
>-Alex
>
>On 9/9/16, 10:05 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Okay, I'll leave installer.xml as-is. I just committed the new binaries
>>with the missing file restored to the dist SVN.
>>
>>- Josh
>>
>>On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/9/16, 9:51 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Okay, I think I have everything set up properly, and I'm ready to
>>>commit
>>> >the updated binaries to SVN. However, as a final test just to be sure,
>>>I
>>> >tried to extract the new binary and manually run ant -f installer.xml.
>>> >Unfortunately, it failed. I noticed that installer.xml still
>>>references
>>> >0.6.0, so it was trying to download the wrong files:
>>> >
>>> ><property name="flexjs.version" value="0.6.0"/>
>>> ><property name="falcon.version" value="0.6.0"/>
>>>
>>> Yes, we didn't catch that during the vote and that was fouling up the
>>> Installer as well. I found a workaround for the Installer, but not
>>>Ant.
>>>
>>> >
>>> >If I manually change them to 0.7.0, the installation script finishes
>>> >successfully. Should I update those values too, before I upload?
>>>
>>> Technically, no, because then that modified source file isn't in an
>>> approved source package, but IMO, it wouldn't be the end of the world
>>>if
>>> you did. I don't know how many folks install using Ant, but I think it
>>>is
>>> very few, and those Ant users should be able to get past this by using:
>>>
>>> ant -f installer.xml -Dflexjs.version=0.7.0 -Dfalcon.version=0.7.0
>>>
>>>
>>> So if I were doing it, I wouldn't change installer.xml, but you are
>>>doing
>>> the work so it is up to you.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Alex
>>>
>>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.7.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Hi Josh,
I updated SVN and unzipped the binary, and compared it. More seems to
have changed than I think should have. Pom.xml files are referencing
0.8.0-SNAPSHOT, for example. Maybe the ant steps I gave injected newer
stuff, not sure. Can you verify what I'm seeing in case I did something
wrong?
Thanks,
-Alex
On 9/9/16, 10:05 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Okay, I'll leave installer.xml as-is. I just committed the new binaries
>with the missing file restored to the dist SVN.
>
>- Josh
>
>On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 9/9/16, 9:51 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Okay, I think I have everything set up properly, and I'm ready to
>>commit
>> >the updated binaries to SVN. However, as a final test just to be sure,
>>I
>> >tried to extract the new binary and manually run ant -f installer.xml.
>> >Unfortunately, it failed. I noticed that installer.xml still references
>> >0.6.0, so it was trying to download the wrong files:
>> >
>> ><property name="flexjs.version" value="0.6.0"/>
>> ><property name="falcon.version" value="0.6.0"/>
>>
>> Yes, we didn't catch that during the vote and that was fouling up the
>> Installer as well. I found a workaround for the Installer, but not Ant.
>>
>> >
>> >If I manually change them to 0.7.0, the installation script finishes
>> >successfully. Should I update those values too, before I upload?
>>
>> Technically, no, because then that modified source file isn't in an
>> approved source package, but IMO, it wouldn't be the end of the world if
>> you did. I don't know how many folks install using Ant, but I think it
>>is
>> very few, and those Ant users should be able to get past this by using:
>>
>> ant -f installer.xml -Dflexjs.version=0.7.0 -Dfalcon.version=0.7.0
>>
>>
>> So if I were doing it, I wouldn't change installer.xml, but you are
>>doing
>> the work so it is up to you.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Alex
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.7.0 RC1
Posted by Josh Tynjala <jo...@gmail.com>.
Okay, I'll leave installer.xml as-is. I just committed the new binaries
with the missing file restored to the dist SVN.
- Josh
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 9/9/16, 9:51 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Okay, I think I have everything set up properly, and I'm ready to commit
> >the updated binaries to SVN. However, as a final test just to be sure, I
> >tried to extract the new binary and manually run ant -f installer.xml.
> >Unfortunately, it failed. I noticed that installer.xml still references
> >0.6.0, so it was trying to download the wrong files:
> >
> ><property name="flexjs.version" value="0.6.0"/>
> ><property name="falcon.version" value="0.6.0"/>
>
> Yes, we didn't catch that during the vote and that was fouling up the
> Installer as well. I found a workaround for the Installer, but not Ant.
>
> >
> >If I manually change them to 0.7.0, the installation script finishes
> >successfully. Should I update those values too, before I upload?
>
> Technically, no, because then that modified source file isn't in an
> approved source package, but IMO, it wouldn't be the end of the world if
> you did. I don't know how many folks install using Ant, but I think it is
> very few, and those Ant users should be able to get past this by using:
>
> ant -f installer.xml -Dflexjs.version=0.7.0 -Dfalcon.version=0.7.0
>
>
> So if I were doing it, I wouldn't change installer.xml, but you are doing
> the work so it is up to you.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.7.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 9/9/16, 9:51 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Okay, I think I have everything set up properly, and I'm ready to commit
>the updated binaries to SVN. However, as a final test just to be sure, I
>tried to extract the new binary and manually run ant -f installer.xml.
>Unfortunately, it failed. I noticed that installer.xml still references
>0.6.0, so it was trying to download the wrong files:
>
><property name="flexjs.version" value="0.6.0"/>
><property name="falcon.version" value="0.6.0"/>
Yes, we didn't catch that during the vote and that was fouling up the
Installer as well. I found a workaround for the Installer, but not Ant.
>
>If I manually change them to 0.7.0, the installation script finishes
>successfully. Should I update those values too, before I upload?
Technically, no, because then that modified source file isn't in an
approved source package, but IMO, it wouldn't be the end of the world if
you did. I don't know how many folks install using Ant, but I think it is
very few, and those Ant users should be able to get past this by using:
ant -f installer.xml -Dflexjs.version=0.7.0 -Dfalcon.version=0.7.0
So if I were doing it, I wouldn't change installer.xml, but you are doing
the work so it is up to you.
Thanks,
-Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.7.0 RC1
Posted by Josh Tynjala <jo...@gmail.com>.
Okay, I think I have everything set up properly, and I'm ready to commit
the updated binaries to SVN. However, as a final test just to be sure, I
tried to extract the new binary and manually run ant -f installer.xml.
Unfortunately, it failed. I noticed that installer.xml still references
0.6.0, so it was trying to download the wrong files:
<property name="flexjs.version" value="0.6.0"/>
<property name="falcon.version" value="0.6.0"/>
If I manually change them to 0.7.0, the installation script finishes
successfully. Should I update those values too, before I upload?
By the way, I double-checked, and these values are incorrect in the 0.7.0
source packages too. I don't know how serious an issue that is.
- Josh
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> You will need a PGP key, if you don't have one already:
> https://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing
>
> I would create an "out" folder in a flex-asjs working copy, and unzip the
> binary package in there, then add the missing file.
>
> Then I would run:
> ant binary-package-tgz binary-package-zip
>
> That should create a tar.gz and .zip file in the out folder. I would
> copy the source packages into the out folder".
>
> Then:
> ant create-md5
>
> Then finally:
> ant sign
>
> In theory, the -src.* files will be untouched and you will have new -bin.*
> files. 6 of them to be exact.
>
> These files go up on dist.apache.org via SVN (not Git). The URL is:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/flex/flexjs
>
>
>
> I can probably do it, but I'm hoping you will just so we have another PMC
> member set up with the pieces to do releases.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
>
>
> On 9/8/16, 5:48 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I can probably do that tomorrow. Can you point me to instructions? I don't
> >know where to upload the updated binaries or what the Apache process is to
> >do the signing. Is there an easy way to generate an md5 for a file on Mac?
> >
> >- Josh
> >
> >On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 9/8/16, 4:12 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >To avoid this issue in the future, whichever ant target is used to
> >>create
> >> >a
> >> >binary release should probably clean everything first. Another
> >>potential
> >> >issue is that someone might modify their downloaded files to test
> >> >something
> >> >locally and forget to revert them. In other words, local modifications
> >> >could end up in a binary release without any kind of warning. If the
> >>full
> >> >binary release build forced a clean and re-downloaded dependencies,
> >>that
> >> >would handle both issues.
> >>
> >> For me, the GCL files are outside the ant folders so a clean wouldn't
> >> help. It is an interesting Apache-ism that they recommend building
> >> artifacts locally. It would be way more safe IMO to just ship something
> >> from the CI server. But that's also a reason that only the source
> >> artifact is an official release. The binary artifacts are harder to
> >> verify and thus aren't official releases, just a convenience.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Can we update the binary release of 0.7.0? Or do we need to do a
> >>0.7.1? As
> >> >far as I can tell, the source bits are fine because the downloads are
> >>part
> >> >of building from source.
> >>
> >> In this case, I think you can add that one file to the binary package,
> >> update the md5 files and sign it and push it back up there.
> >>
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.7.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
You will need a PGP key, if you don't have one already:
https://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing
I would create an "out" folder in a flex-asjs working copy, and unzip the
binary package in there, then add the missing file.
Then I would run:
ant binary-package-tgz binary-package-zip
That should create a tar.gz and .zip file in the out folder. I would
copy the source packages into the out folder".
Then:
ant create-md5
Then finally:
ant sign
In theory, the -src.* files will be untouched and you will have new -bin.*
files. 6 of them to be exact.
These files go up on dist.apache.org via SVN (not Git). The URL is:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/flex/flexjs
I can probably do it, but I'm hoping you will just so we have another PMC
member set up with the pieces to do releases.
Thanks,
-Alex
On 9/8/16, 5:48 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I can probably do that tomorrow. Can you point me to instructions? I don't
>know where to upload the updated binaries or what the Apache process is to
>do the signing. Is there an easy way to generate an md5 for a file on Mac?
>
>- Josh
>
>On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 9/8/16, 4:12 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >To avoid this issue in the future, whichever ant target is used to
>>create
>> >a
>> >binary release should probably clean everything first. Another
>>potential
>> >issue is that someone might modify their downloaded files to test
>> >something
>> >locally and forget to revert them. In other words, local modifications
>> >could end up in a binary release without any kind of warning. If the
>>full
>> >binary release build forced a clean and re-downloaded dependencies,
>>that
>> >would handle both issues.
>>
>> For me, the GCL files are outside the ant folders so a clean wouldn't
>> help. It is an interesting Apache-ism that they recommend building
>> artifacts locally. It would be way more safe IMO to just ship something
>> from the CI server. But that's also a reason that only the source
>> artifact is an official release. The binary artifacts are harder to
>> verify and thus aren't official releases, just a convenience.
>>
>> >
>> >Can we update the binary release of 0.7.0? Or do we need to do a
>>0.7.1? As
>> >far as I can tell, the source bits are fine because the downloads are
>>part
>> >of building from source.
>>
>> In this case, I think you can add that one file to the binary package,
>> update the md5 files and sign it and push it back up there.
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.7.0 RC1
Posted by Josh Tynjala <jo...@gmail.com>.
I can probably do that tomorrow. Can you point me to instructions? I don't
know where to upload the updated binaries or what the Apache process is to
do the signing. Is there an easy way to generate an md5 for a file on Mac?
- Josh
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 9/8/16, 4:12 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >To avoid this issue in the future, whichever ant target is used to create
> >a
> >binary release should probably clean everything first. Another potential
> >issue is that someone might modify their downloaded files to test
> >something
> >locally and forget to revert them. In other words, local modifications
> >could end up in a binary release without any kind of warning. If the full
> >binary release build forced a clean and re-downloaded dependencies, that
> >would handle both issues.
>
> For me, the GCL files are outside the ant folders so a clean wouldn't
> help. It is an interesting Apache-ism that they recommend building
> artifacts locally. It would be way more safe IMO to just ship something
> from the CI server. But that's also a reason that only the source
> artifact is an official release. The binary artifacts are harder to
> verify and thus aren't official releases, just a convenience.
>
> >
> >Can we update the binary release of 0.7.0? Or do we need to do a 0.7.1? As
> >far as I can tell, the source bits are fine because the downloads are part
> >of building from source.
>
> In this case, I think you can add that one file to the binary package,
> update the md5 files and sign it and push it back up there.
>
> -Alex
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.7.0 RC1
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 9/8/16, 4:12 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>To avoid this issue in the future, whichever ant target is used to create
>a
>binary release should probably clean everything first. Another potential
>issue is that someone might modify their downloaded files to test
>something
>locally and forget to revert them. In other words, local modifications
>could end up in a binary release without any kind of warning. If the full
>binary release build forced a clean and re-downloaded dependencies, that
>would handle both issues.
For me, the GCL files are outside the ant folders so a clean wouldn't
help. It is an interesting Apache-ism that they recommend building
artifacts locally. It would be way more safe IMO to just ship something
from the CI server. But that's also a reason that only the source
artifact is an official release. The binary artifacts are harder to
verify and thus aren't official releases, just a convenience.
>
>Can we update the binary release of 0.7.0? Or do we need to do a 0.7.1? As
>far as I can tell, the source bits are fine because the downloads are part
>of building from source.
In this case, I think you can add that one file to the binary package,
update the md5 files and sign it and push it back up there.
-Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.7.0 RC1
Posted by Josh Tynjala <jo...@gmail.com>.
Just to be sure, I cleaned the third-party downloads in my local repository
and ran ant all. The file ended up in the correct location, as it had when
I originally tested my change. This seems to confirm that the 0.7.0 binary
release was built using cached downloads, which were out of date.
To avoid this issue in the future, whichever ant target is used to create a
binary release should probably clean everything first. Another potential
issue is that someone might modify their downloaded files to test something
locally and forget to revert them. In other words, local modifications
could end up in a binary release without any kind of warning. If the full
binary release build forced a clean and re-downloaded dependencies, that
would handle both issues.
Can we update the binary release of 0.7.0? Or do we need to do a 0.7.1? As
far as I can tell, the source bits are fine because the downloads are part
of building from source.
- Josh
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Josh Tynjala <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The file js/lib/google/closure-library/closure/goog/bootstrap/nodejs.js
> is missing from 0.7.0. This file is required to run debug builds produced
> by asnodec with Node.js. Release builds aren't broken, but this still isn't
> good.
>
> At some point, flex-asjs started using a subset of GCL, and this file was
> accidentally omitted when the list of files to keep was created in
> frameworks/downloads.xml. No big deal at the time. I added it to the list
> back in July. I assumed a full release build would re-download all
> dependencies just to be sure nothing was stale, but I guess maybe it still
> uses cached downloads?
>
> - Josh
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> This is the discussion thread.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alex Harui
>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache FlexJS 0.7.0 RC1
Posted by Josh Tynjala <jo...@gmail.com>.
The file js/lib/google/closure-library/closure/goog/bootstrap/nodejs.js is
missing from 0.7.0. This file is required to run debug builds produced by
asnodec with Node.js. Release builds aren't broken, but this still isn't
good.
At some point, flex-asjs started using a subset of GCL, and this file was
accidentally omitted when the list of files to keep was created in
frameworks/downloads.xml. No big deal at the time. I added it to the list
back in July. I assumed a full release build would re-download all
dependencies just to be sure nothing was stale, but I guess maybe it still
uses cached downloads?
- Josh
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> This is the discussion thread.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Alex Harui
>