I found the offending code in an FB class. It is using a single \d for the version parsing. I wonder what it would take to patch it?
-Alex On 7/26/13 8:45 AM, "Frédéric Thomas" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote: >Oups, I meant when the build number is 0 > >-----Message d'origine----- >From: Frédéric Thomas >Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 5:40 PM >To: dev@flex.apache.org >Subject: Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify > >> But I wonder if the version element is used elsewhere? > >Just for info, it is used by the mavenizer too but there is no issues, >tested it time ago with 4.10.x >One particularity is with x == 0, it generates 4.10.0-SNAPSHOT instead of >the classic 4.10.x which is useful when you want to mavenize the develop >branch and it is well taken in account by IntelliJ > >-Fred > >-----Message d'origine----- >From: Alex Harui >Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 5:24 PM >To: dev@flex.apache.org >Subject: Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify > >Ugh. Thanks for checking it out. > >So the SDK name still showed up as 4.10? I suppose we could just leave >the version element at 4.9.9 with a comment saying we had to do that for >FB. But I wonder if the version element is used elsewhere? > >-Alex > >On 7/26/13 7:52 AM, "Cyrill Zadra" <cyrill.za...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>With following steps I could create new flash builder projects again >>with no errors. >> >>1) Changed <version> element in flex-sdk-description.xml from 4.10.0 to >>4.9.0 >>2) Configure SDK in Flash Builder >>3) Create new Project with newly configured SDK >> >>My sdk was installed with Apache Flex Installer. So I would say the >>problem ist the version number. >> >>On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >>> In one of the past releases, we messed up the core.swc build script and >>> didn't catch it until after release. It seems like we should make sure >>> this is in fact a bug in FB and not some other thing we messed up that >>>is >>> under our control before releasing. So somebody should try a build >>>with a >>> 4.9.9 version number just to be sure. I'll see if I can get another >>> computer going on it. >>> >>> Clearly we all have different opinions on quality, but a problem in the >>> first thing a newbie tries with FB New Project wouldn't make us look >>>very >>> good and attract more people, especially if we can find a way around >>>it, >>> and shipping with known regressions doesn't help either. Very >>>recently, >>> OpenOffice also voted to release and was in the process of copying >>>their >>> bits to dist when they stopped because an issue was found. Just >>>because >>> you have the votes doesn't mean you have to deploy those bits. >>> >>> -Alex >>> >>> On 7/26/13 7:00 AM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: >>> >>>>Hi, >>>> >>>>And I really have to say this is not exactly a show stopper or critical >>>>issue. This need to put into perspective as there a very simple work >>>>around eg just fix/edit the code yourself. It's an inconvenience at >>>>most, >>>>nothing to do with the SDK itself, and not everyone uses Flash Builder. >>>>I'm not sure we can ever fix the issue, without revering the version >>>>number to 4.9.2 or something silly. We should be asking Adobe to fix it >>>>not using it as yet another excuse to not make a release. >>>> >>>>The vote for the release candidates has passed and was successful. As >>>>the >>>>release manager I'm willing to give a couple of days grace to see if >>>>any >>>>solutions for any "outstanding" issues can be found and consider >>>>creating >>>>a new release candidate to put up for another vote, but beyond they can >>>>go into the next point release, anything more than that is really going >>>>against Apache policy. >>>> >>>>Thanks, >>>>Justin >>> >
