Hi Scott,
I finally got a look at the doc. Thanks for writing this up. Some
comments:
1) Instead of "Voting member & committer of the Apache Flex PMC", which
sounds like a title, that it say "committer and member of the Apache Flex
PMC".
2) I'm not sure I understand this paragraph:
The Project also announced the availability of version 4.10.0 of the
Apache Flex
application framework.
Apache Flex 4.10 and the Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.6 consisting of a
software
development kit (SDK), a compiler, and automated testing tools.
We are not shipping an "application framework" as far as I know. To me,
"application framework" means higher-level frameworks like Swiz, Parsley,
etc. And then the second sentence starting with "Apache Flex 4.10"
doesn't really seem like a sentence. If the "." after framework at the
end of the first sentence was supposed to be a "," then I don't understand
what we are "also" announcing other than the installer. And, the
installer doesn't "consist" of a compiler, etc, but it does install one.
3) I think I would leave out the part about automated testing tools as
others suggested.
4) There's are more instances of "v4.10.0" and "v 4.10.0". Please change
as Justin suggested.
5) In the first highlight, it should be "choose" not "chose".
6) Do we really want the release notes URL to be the one on GitHub?
7) I think "formatters, validations, date fields and date choosers." would
be better as "formatters, validators, and the DateField and DateChooser
components".
8) I don't think "work-arounds" needs a hyphen.
Thanks,
-Alex
On 7/26/13 8:01 AM, "Scott Guthmann" <sc...@on3solutions.com> wrote:
>> Scott,
>> I can post this to blogs. apache.org. Are we still going to wait for
>>the installer to be finished, or do you want me to post it right now?
>> -Nick
>First, here is the shared document. Please let me know if you are not
>able to see it and edit it:
>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bG5EDWbCYhujhu_oYl7f2eFaxmxfSTNTNa4o8W
>_DQQM/edit?usp=sharing
>
>I agree with Om, Alex, Justin, and Erik. The team must make a decision
>regarding this discussion thread: "Attention: another possible show
>stopper, please verify" before promotion should be started.
>Second, I agree with Justin. Until the code + binaries + new installer
>version are in release & something about mirrors?, then the promotion is
>on hold.
>
>Thank you Nick for the offer to post this content. As soon as these 2
>issues are resolved, we can being promotion. I rather liked Erik's
>suggestion that the release manager should make the go / no go decision.
