I'm Sorry, this post must be posted at rc5 thread
______________________
Jose Barragan
Senior Software Engineer
Codeoscopic
+34 912 94 80 80
http://www.codeoscopic.com

On 30 Jun 2014, at 12:49, Jose Barragan <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi, testing the new Installer I got an exception when tried to install the 
> 4.13.0 RC2 FDK but doesn’t happened when installing 4.12.1 ...
> 
> Process:         Apache Flex SDK Installer [5570]
> Path:            /Applications/Apache Flex/Apache Flex SDK 
> Installer.app/Contents/MacOS/Apache Flex SDK Installer
> Identifier:      org.apache.flex.installapacheflex
> Version:         3.1.0 (???)
> Code Type:       X86 (Native)
> Parent Process:  launchd [277]
> Responsible:     Apache Flex SDK Installer [5570]
> User ID:         501
> 
> Date/Time:       2014-06-30 12:43:37.045 +0200
> OS Version:      Mac OS X 10.9.3 (13D65)
> Report Version:  11
> Anonymous UUID:  74662061-F9E9-E13F-709F-F0DD028953BA
> 
> 
> Crashed Thread:  9  com.apple.NSURLConnectionLoader
> 
> Exception Type:  EXC_CRASH (SIGABRT)
> Exception Codes: 0x0000000000000000, 0x0000000000000000
> 
> Application Specific Information:
> terminating with uncaught exception of type Security::UnixError: UNIX error 
> exception
> abort() called
> 
> 
> 
> anybody knows something about that?
> 
> ______________________
> Jose Barragan
> Senior Software Engineer
> Codeoscopic
> +34 912 94 80 80
> http://www.codeoscopic.com
> 
> On 30 Jun 2014, at 09:04, Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> Would the vote be consensus?  If so, it is guaranteed to lose.
>> If the vote is majority and loses, does that prevent me from using the 
>> script?  Or sharing with others via some other place other than the repo?
>> 
>> I guess I don't see how we can legislate against individuals using scripts.  
>> But I do agree that we don't want to keep arguing this topic.
>> 
>> -Alex
>> ________________________________________
>> From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala 
>> [[email protected]]
>> Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 11:08 PM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.1 - RC3
>> 
>> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:26 PM, Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Again, this script does not decide on the correctness of the
>>> LICENSE/NOTICE, so every time some one or the same person runs it, there is
>>> the same chance they will catch an error as if they had typed the
>>> command-line commands themselves.   The script does not vote for you, it is
>>> only intended to increase your efficiency and accuracy in deciding how to
>>> vote.  And yes, nobody has to use it.
>>> 
>>> 
>> Let us vote on this verification scripts and formalize it, please.  We
>> don't want to argue this point during every RC.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Om
>> 
>> 
>>> -Alex
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Justin Mclean [[email protected]]
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 5:39 PM
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.1 - RC3
>>> 
>>> HI,
>>> 
>>>> The approval scripts attempt to get you to vote with less hassle.
>>> 
>>> Again to make clear a script is in no way a replacement for voting. Don't
>>> get me wrong it's very useful as a basic check and hopefully that will mean
>>> people will vote more. But put it this way, running the script 1000 times
>>> on a RC by one person or once by 1000 people gives the same results. Would
>>> the second really be worth 1000 +1 votes? Do we really think that a script
>>> == due diligence?
> 

Reply via email to