if we're not exactly ready, we're not ready. Why the hurry if there we
are not unanimously satisfied. The previous release is doing the job is
it not?
aYo
On Sun 09 Mar 2014 06:30:48 WAT, Alex Harui wrote:
At this point, if you can find the time to try rc6 and it works for you,
then waiting a couple more days to announce 4.12 may be the safest choice.
But I still don't understand why we don't think better messaging with an
asynchronous Installer release would solve the problem regarding
confusion. I don't know if you folks remember when an Adobe Flex beta
installer wiped hard drives, but if we were to have such a problem I'm
sure we'd rush to release a new installer and announce it in a way that
folks would not be confused by it. IOW, we might someday have to release
in Installer without piggybacking on a Flex SDK or FlexJS release, so we
might as well practice our messaging to avoid the confusion.
For this 3.0 release, maybe the installer announcement can read something
like:
"Apache Flex announces the release of InstallApacheFlex 3.0, an upgrade to
the current installer that enables the Installer to not only install the
current Apache Flex SDK (Apache Flex SDK 4.12.0) but also install release
candidates and eventually releases of other Apache Flex products like
FlexJS."
And if rc6 fails, and we do release the Installer later, we should add:
"Reminder: This release of InstallApacheFlex is independent of the
release of the Apache Flex SDK. If you have upgraded to Apache Flex SDK
4.12.0, you do not need to re-install the Apache Flex SDK after upgrading
to InstallApacheFlex 3.0"
Thoughts?
-Alex
On 3/8/14 1:32 PM, "Maurice Amsellem" <maurice.amsel...@systar.com> wrote:
If Installer 3.0 piggybacks with SDK 4.12, we will have a lot of folks
with an Installer that is capable of installing FlexJS.
Then once we actually release FlexJS 1.0, it is just a matter of
updating the config file.
People can then readily download and install FlexJS without having to
upgrade the Installer.
Since FlexJS is new, we cannot be sure that a lot of folks will jump at
a new release and try it out.
It might well turn out to be more popular than I expect, but lets give
a better chance off the bat.
I understand that the new Installer 3.0 could benefit from the momentum
of SDK 4.12 release.
I just wouldn't want that the opposite happens:
- delaying too much the release of SDK 4.12 until Installer 3.0 is ready
- or worse: releasing too early, and having people failing to install the
new SDK because of unexpected issues in the new installer.
Maurice
-----Message d'origine-----
De : omup...@gmail.com [mailto:omup...@gmail.com] De la part de OmPrakash
Muppirala
Envoyé : samedi 8 mars 2014 22:13
À : dev@flex.apache.org
Objet : Re: Should we release 4.12?
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Maurice Amsellem <
maurice.amsel...@systar.com> wrote:
Why the stealth release now? What do we gain from that? Someone
will
inevitably blog/tweet about it and we will be in a position to explain
what's happening.
I don't see any harm in waiting for a few days to release the sdk and
the
Installer together.
- I agree there is no point for a stealth release
- I would agree to wait a few days for the installer to be ready
(give a chance to RC6)
BUT, for the reasons stated before ( Installer not linked to Flex
SDK), I think that
- if the installer still has issues in a few days then
- then we should proceed with announcement of SDK 4.12.
- and postpone release of Installer to the next milestone of FlexJS
(I am sure they will be many opportunities to do so).
Sounds like a reasonable proposition.
It does sound reasonable, but the only problem is that we will miss out
on the massive influx of visitors to the site that a Flex SDK release
brings.
Take a look at the first chart here [1] All the peaks correspond to SDK
releases.
If Installer 3.0 piggybacks with SDK 4.12, we will have a lot of folks
with an Installer that is capable of installing FlexJS. Then once we
actually release FlexJS 1.0, it is just a matter of updating the config
file.
People can then readily download and install FlexJS without having to
upgrade the Installer.
Since FlexJS is new, we cannot be sure that a lot of folks will jump at a
new release and try it out. It might well turn out to be more popular
than I expect, but lets give a better chance off the bat.
Thanks,
Om
[1] seethestats.com/site/flex.apache.org
WDYT ?
Maurice
-----Message d'origine-----
De : omup...@gmail.com [mailto:omup...@gmail.com] De la part de
OmPrakash Muppirala Envoyé : samedi 8 mars 2014 18:09 À :
dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: Should we release 4.12?
On Mar 8, 2014 8:57 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
Nick, I think you hit the sweet spot.
+1 on the stealth release now and a noisy announcement when the new
Installer is available.
EdB
Why the stealth release now? What do we gain from that? Someone will
inevitably blog/tweet about it and we will be in a position to explain
what's happening.
I don't see any harm in waiting for a few days to release the sdk and
the Installer together.
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski
<nicho...@spoon.as
wrote:
I say we "release" it but not make the announcements. By release,
I
mean
update the website, and update the installer config. When we pass
the installer vote, we can then do the blog post, and the official
apache announcement.
That way, we can get the new one out there, but only make the
noise
once.
-Nick
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Justin Mclean
<jus...@classsoftware.com
wrote:
Hi,
I think both are different things, so I'll make a release of
SDK
4.12
and
then after RC6 conclude a few days later will announce
Installer.
So I think you mean to informally vote +1 to release both at
different times rather than -1 there?
Thanks,
Justin
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
--
*aYo*
www.ayobinitie.com
http://mrbinitie.blogspot.com
