[DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

This is the discussion thread.

Thanks,
Alex Harui

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

The source release (.tar.gz) has a unexpected binary file inside it, so looks like there will need to be another RC. But I’ll do a full review before voting and see if there is anything else we need to fix as well.

Here’s the file:
ant_on_air/tests/OSMF2_0.swc

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

> The LICENSE and NOTICE are in the binary .dmg are exactly the same as the ones in the source release. I thought it was discussed and agreed that these should be different?

Ah sorry they are different it's just that the extra license info is above the "APACHE FLEX SUBCOMPONENTS” line.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

The LICENSE and NOTICE are in the binary .dmg are exactly the same as the ones in the source release. I thought it was discussed and agreed that these should be different?

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1

[Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>]

Hi,

Just trying to run the approve script. I get a failure while building. The
'packageair' step is looking for NOTICE in the 'installer' subdirectory,
where it isn't. It seems to be in the root.

Also I noticed that running the approve script that it doesn't check the
PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME variable before starting, causing the build to just fail
when it isn't.

EdB





On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:

> This is the discussion thread.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex Harui
>
>


-- 
Ix Multimedia Software

Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht

T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 6/19/15, 12:16 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>> It sounded like we’d burn credits if we sign an RC and
>> then have to sign a subsequent RC if the first RC doesn’t get approved
>>by
>> our PMC.
>
>As far as I’m aware there’s a test process which costs nothing, and it
>also costs if we (Apache as a whole) don’t use it.
>
>> So I think we finish up the usual process then get it signed.
>
>That sounds possible, but I’m not sure how we would show that the
>binaries are the some ones or if it would require another VOTE.

Our binaries have MD5 hashes.  Anyway, I have no objection to you or
somebody taking the next steps with Infra to find out more explicitly what
our next steps are.  It just isn’t clear to me that this signing needs to
be done before release approval.

-Alex

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

> It sounded like we’d burn credits if we sign an RC and
> then have to sign a subsequent RC if the first RC doesn’t get approved by
> our PMC.

As far as I’m aware there’s a test process which costs nothing, and it also costs if we (Apache as a whole) don’t use it.

> So I think we finish up the usual process then get it signed.

That sounds possible, but I’m not sure how we would show that the binaries are the some ones or if it would require another VOTE.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 6/18/15, 6:41 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
>> If someone wants to take on signing the binary, that’s fine with me.
>
>If you want to make the next RC and then give me the binaries before
>putting them up I’ll give it a go, unless someone else wants to?  I am
>getting on a plane in 24 hours and will be at a conference next week
>which might reduce my involvement a little.

My takeaway from the blog article is that we sign the binary we approve
for distribution.  It sounded like we’d burn credits if we sign an RC and
then have to sign a subsequent RC if the first RC doesn’t get approved by
our PMC.  So I think we finish up the usual process then get it signed.  I
think it said a JIRA needs to be filed to get a certificate.  I don’t know
if a PMC discussion has to happen first, but feel free to get that started.

-Alex

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

> Yes, because someone asked about it a while ago separate from this
> release.  Please don’t mix work that folks besides the RM can do with what
> needs to be done to finish the release.

Yep it’s not a release blocker and it is separate from the release.

Last time Om, Greg and myself all tried to get a new FP version working and were unable to. You were able to fix it. Being full time on this project means you probably have a bit more bandwidth as well. All volunteers are of course free to work on what what they want, scratch your own itch and all that.

> If someone wants to take on signing the binary, that’s fine with me.

If you want to make the next RC and then give me the binaries before putting them up I’ll give it a go, unless someone else wants to?  I am getting on a plane in 24 hours and will be at a conference next week which might reduce my involvement a little.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 6/18/15, 5:21 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@me.com> wrote:

>HI,
>
>> Which AIR/FP versions are offered is independent of the release.  That
>>is
>> managed in a data file on flex.a.o.
>
>Understand but users would expect a new release to support the recently
>releases FP 18/AIR 18 would they not?

Yes, because someone asked about it a while ago separate from this
release.  Please don’t mix work that folks besides the RM can do with what
needs to be done to finish the release.

>
>> What did you mean in your other post about signing the app?  It is
>> theoretically signed by some certificate Om created.
>
>The app could be signed to make the user install process much simpler.
>This signing is separate to signing the air application.

If someone wants to take on signing the binary, that’s fine with me.

-Alex

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1

[Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>]

HI,

Heres the info from infra:
https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/code_signing_service_now_available <https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/code_signing_service_now_available>

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1

[Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>]

HI,

> Which AIR/FP versions are offered is independent of the release.  That is
> managed in a data file on flex.a.o.

Understand but users would expect a new release to support the recently releases FP 18/AIR 18 would they not?

> What did you mean in your other post about signing the app?  It is
> theoretically signed by some certificate Om created. 

The app could be signed to make the user install process much simpler. This signing is separate to signing the air application.

See:
https://support.apple.com/kb/PH18657?locale=en_US <https://support.apple.com/kb/PH18657?locale=en_US>
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee619725(v=ws.10).aspx <https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee619725(v=ws.10).aspx>

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 6/18/15, 4:48 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>> I’ll probably still cut an RC2 tonight because I had to make enough
>> changes to where some files live and the build script that packages them
>> that people might be wasting time reviewing the RC1 packages.
>
>That may be some other issues that need looking into before making a RC2
>(see my vote email just posted).
>
>In particular from in testing SDK 4.14.1 and FlexJS 0.02 times out on the
>first step, also having FP/AIR 18 is also probably a good thing.  I was
>unable to get a beta/non beta version working last time, you mind looking
>into that?

Which AIR/FP versions are offered is independent of the release.  That is
managed in a data file on flex.a.o.

What did you mean in your other post about signing the app?  It is
theoretically signed by some certificate Om created.  Is there some other
signature that is needed?

-Alex

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

> I’ll probably still cut an RC2 tonight because I had to make enough
> changes to where some files live and the build script that packages them
> that people might be wasting time reviewing the RC1 packages.

That may be some other issues that need looking into before making a RC2 (see my vote email just posted). 

In particular from in testing SDK 4.14.1 and FlexJS 0.02 times out on the first step, also having FP/AIR 18 is also probably a good thing.  I was unable to get a beta/non beta version working last time, you mind looking into that?

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 6/18/15, 2:31 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>> How much longer should we wait?  Anybody else planning to test RC1?
>
>I would assume other people are.. I’ve still not reviewed the release in
>detail or even got to running the installer yet. It’s been under 24 hours
>so there may even be people who don’t even know we have a release to vote
>on.

Theoretically, before I cut RC1, folks were supposed to review the
packages in detail.

I’ll probably still cut an RC2 tonight because I had to make enough
changes to where some files live and the build script that packages them
that people might be wasting time reviewing the RC1 packages.

-Alex

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

> How much longer should we wait?  Anybody else planning to test RC1?

I would assume other people are.. I’ve still not reviewed the release in detail or even got to running the installer yet. It’s been under 24 hours so there may even be people who don’t even know we have a release to vote on.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 6/18/15, 2:12 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>HI,
>
>> Well, so much for the less-RC process.  I’ll roll out another RC in
>>about
>> 9 hours.
>
>You might want to allow more time for any other feedback and hopefully
>reduce the need for further RCs.

How much longer should we wait?  Anybody else planning to test RC1?

>
>BTW the binary in the source was found via rat perhaps the release
>process needs to be updated? While the approval script can save people
>time it may not catch everything so it generally a good idea for the RM
>to run rat manually.

The approval script did catch it.

-Alex

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

HI,

> Well, so much for the less-RC process.  I’ll roll out another RC in about
> 9 hours.

You might want to allow more time for any other feedback and hopefully reduce the need for further RCs.

BTW the binary in the source was found via rat perhaps the release process needs to be updated? While the approval script can save people time it may not catch everything so it generally a good idea for the RM to run rat manually.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 6/18/15, 1:50 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:

>>
>> Anyone else seeing this or have I done something wrong?
>>
>
>I reported this about an hour ago.

Well, so much for the less-RC process.  I’ll roll out another RC in about
9 hours.

-Alex

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1

[Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>]

>
> Anyone else seeing this or have I done something wrong?
>

I reported this about an hour ago.

EdB



-- 
Ix Multimedia Software

Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht

T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1

[Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>]

Hi,

I’m also seeing a compile error, that seems to be related to placement of the NOTICE file?

      [get] To: /Users/justinmclean/Downloads/ApacheFlexSDKInstaller/apache-flex-sdk-installer-3.2.0-src/installer/deps/as3crypto/LICENSE.txt
     [java] no such file /Users/justinmclean/Downloads/ApacheFlexSDKInstaller/apache-flex-sdk-installer-3.2.0-src/installer/NOTICE
     [java] usage:
     [java]   adt -checkstore SIGNING_OPTIONS
     
<snip>

BUILD FAILED
/Users/justinmclean/Downloads/ApacheFlexSDKInstaller/apache-flex-sdk-installer-3.2.0-src/installer/build.xml:383: Java returned: 2

Anyone else seeing this or have I done something wrong?

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1

[Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>]

>
> build.number=0
>
> Ignoring the incorrect dates, should the build.number be 0?
>

?

EdB



-- 
Ix Multimedia Software

Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht

T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

Are the contents of build.number correct?

#Copyright 2014 The Apache Software Foundation.
#Sat, 28 Sep 2013 18:23:00 +1000
build.number=0

Ignoring the incorrect dates, should the build.number be 0?

Thanks,
Justin