Ok here's the feedback on FDT5 Linux. I did not bother with 4.10.0 as that is not released yet. I wanted to be certain that the layout attribute was not causing problems as it is a released version
1. With SDK 4.9.0 I get a java null pointer error - I tried to work around this error using the FDT suggested method of changing the version in the flex sdk configuration xml but I was not successful. Ca na marche pas :(. 2. With SDK 4.6 which I used as a control I found that the web project would not compile with the s:Application attribute layout="absolute". If you took that out it compiled fine. Perhaps this bug has been there a lot longer than it seems. aYo www.ayobinitie.com mrbinitie.blogspot.com On 26 Jul 2013 22:50, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > >>> > > > > > > > >
