On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
> I found the offending code in an FB class. It is using a single \d for > the version parsing. Can you please elaborate about the version parsing bug in FB? > I wonder what it would take to patch it? > > Who is this question targeted towards? Adobe FlashBuilder team or Apache Flex team? Would FlashBuilder team be willing to push out a patch just to support Apache Flex 4.10? Or is it possible to solve the problem by calling our release 5.0.0 (just asking) And do we know if the other IDEs dont have this same problem? Anyone tried it out on FDT, IntelliJ, FlashDevelop, etc.? Thanks, Om > -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 > >>> > > > >
