>Well, re-read the end of that thread and let me know where you stand. Alex wrote: "Another possibility is that we leave the PBK's where they are and simply add new build targets to flex-sdk build script. That might be simpler and gives us the option of reverting back to a single package if we find that we can someday."
is this the point you are talking about ? Maurice -----Message d'origine----- De : Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Envoyé : mercredi 18 décembre 2013 00:48 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex PixelBender Package 1.0 (RC2) On 12/17/13 3:35 PM, "Maurice Amsellem" <maurice.amsel...@systar.com> wrote: >> 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 ? It can. >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). At the end of that discussion (around December 12), you talked me out of putting it in a different repo. > >IMO, it would be much simpler to do it that way than "logically >partitioning" the flex-sdk sources and build files. Well, re-read the end of that thread and let me know where you stand. > >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
