On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com>wrote:
> 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 :-) > I never said I don't build the binary myself. I build sdk binary and load the Installer via the commandline, pointing it to the sdk binary in the hard disk. > > > 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. > Agreed. But some PMC members need to test the published binaries as well, because it is part of the release and someone needs to make sure it works. > > 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. > > As I said, without the Installer, testing a binary (that I build), with various FP/AIR runtimes is very hard. I never got to making the flash player download shell scripts on Windows. At least on Windows, using the Installer is the best way to test an RC. I dont see why this is outside the Apache rules for testing RCs. Thanks, Om > Thanks, > Justin
