On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
> > > On 8/26/14 2:54 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >+1 to Justin's proposal. It makes sense to do things the right way and to > >encourage new folks to become Release Managers as the overhead is very low > >for TourDeFlex project. > I don't believe my proposal is the "wrong way", just another alternative. > I think your way would lead to confusion. Let's try to avoid that. > > > >Keep in mind that we may not be able to do this for 3rd party component > >developers. Because we want to hotlink to their examples and code > >directly, we may not be able to 'build' a release from our side. > > > >I propose that we create a new thirdparty.xml and allow direct editing of > >the file on the site so that 3rd party content will show up immediately > >without having to go through a release process. > I'm not sure I understand your position. I think you are saying you only > want to push a compiled source release to the site, but now I think you > are saying that it won't be a pure compilation, that some tweaks will be > made. In fact, we already approved one tweak when we added analytics to > the landing page. Where are you drawing the line? > I would say the line is when we compile a swf with the code in the repo, we need to make an official release. If we are hot linking, i.e. we don't have the source for an example, we don't need to go through the release process. Same way as the Installer. If we know that a dependency has changed, we just change it in the installer config xml and push the site. If we need to change the Installer itself, we go through a release process. And in some cases where we need to make minor changes (like the Google Analytics hook), we can quickly take a [LAZY] vote to see if there are objections. Thanks, Om > > -Alex > >
