Hi, > I agree with all this. The part: "and test the resulting executable on > their own platform" is where the problem arises. The binary that our ant > build creates is useless unless we get all the other dependencies. Obviously you can't test it fully without the 3rd party dependancies. So yes you need to get those somehow.
> There is no way we can test it without running it through the scripts or the > Installer. I find the Installer to be much flexibile (see above). I agree. And yes it is more flexible but not how Apache says we should be voting on releases. If you don't use a binary you have compiled yourself, but one that's been provided, how do you know you can compile it or even what's in it? I could of just renamed the previous binaries :-) > It does not say anything about how to test the Flex SDK binary. It does quite clearly IMO: "Before voting +1 PMC members are required to download the signed source code package, compile it as provided, and test the resulting executable on their own platform, along with also verifying that the package meets the requirements of the ASF policy on releases." So you could compile the source and then use the installer (or scripts) to install your locally compiled binary (by putting a local path in your config file), just as long as it doesn't download the hosted convenience binary. We could even vote on RC's without making the binaries at all (would make the release managers life a lot easier) but it helps to have other committers and users test it without having to compile the SDK. Also any form of testing and review is better than none, if you found an issue using the installer I'd certainly take notice of it, but as PMC members we need to abide by the rules Apache have for releases. Thanks, Justin
