On 12/17/13 3:19 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>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 downloads.xml does the right thing (downloads the -bin.zip, only copies out the pbk/pbj), but there is no steps for working from the source kit per-se as you pointed out. Maybe it isn't really necessary either and I'll just note in the README or RELEASE_NOTES that you can just copy a certain part of the tree. > >> 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. I think we can. The main SDK release is a subset of flex-sdk already (doesn't have all of mustella). >Does that mean we also need to vote on a release a version of pixel >bender when making a new SDK release? No, the SDK uses the latest package as an upstream dependency. We'd only need to vote on the pixel bender package if its contents were to change. > >> 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. Yeah, I'll make a tag for the next RC. > >> 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? It may not be required, I'm just trying to do the least amount of work to release this package. The fewer ant targets we need to make run, the better. > >> 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? No. We don't need to. > >> 4) can we say that the clean target doesn't work? >I think it would be expected that it should work. What if I make a clean-pixelbender target. Would that be sufficient? > >Thanks, >Justin
