On 12/17/13 11:45 PM, "Maurice Amsellem" <maurice.amsel...@systar.com> wrote:
>>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 ? Yeah. So what are your thoughts now? I've been trying to get a look at the pixel bender compiler source to determine if it is worth donating to Apache Flex. If we could get enough stuff to have control of the compiler would we write a Linux version and then go back to a single package? > >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 >
