> The goal was to not move the PBK files out to a different repo and > instead, package a subset of the flex-sdk repo.
Why can't it be on a different repo ? >From our early discussion on the subject (see email thread "PixelBender and >Builds.a.o"), I understood that PBK sources were moved to a sub project in >flex-utilities. Which means PBK sources and any reference to pixelbender should be completely removed from flex sdk. Morever, the pixel-bender project in flex-utilities was supposed to have its own build.xml. The result of the new pixel-bender build would be manually committed to dist svn repo (and voted for). IMO, it would be much simpler to do it that way than "logically partitioning" the flex-sdk sources and build files. WDYT ? Maurice -----Message d'origine----- De : Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com] Envoyé : mercredi 18 décembre 2013 00:19 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex PixelBender Package 1.0 (RC2) Hi, > OK. Good point about the overlay of the notice files. I'll add an > ant target to copy just the pbk/pbj. That would be required for the CI anyway wouldn't it? > The goal was to not move the PBK files out to a different repo and > instead, package a subset of the flex-sdk repo. Can we actually do that ie does it follow Apache release guidelines? I'm not sure. Does that mean we also need to vote on a release a version of pixel bender when making a new SDK release? > Do you think everything on this list is required? Not everything, It is expected that someone can take the source release and compile it and verify it to what's in version control. > 1) can we tell folks in the RELEASE_NOTES not to run > release-pixelbender target and say that it is for extracting this > package from a full flex-sdk repo? We can say what we want in RELEASE_NOTE/README. But it seem odd to me that you need the full Flex SDK is required just to make a release of pixel bender. What do other people think? > 2) can we say that the LICENSE file contains extra licenses that may > only apply to the full repo? I would assume that LICENSE/NOTICE file needs to refer to the actual release (and any upstream projects) they are in not any downstream projects. The Apache licence make reference to the NOTICE file so we would need to legally comply with that. > 3) can we say that the build.xml and properties files reference the > full flex-sdk build? Does this mean we need to make a new PB release every time they change? > 4) can we say that the clean target doesn't work? I think it would be expected that it should work. Thanks, Justin
