On 8/26/14 3:31 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >>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. What kind of confusion? >> 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. The installer is different because people download it and run it. Although there is a nightly installer build for Windows available. Related: Are you in favor of going back to loading explorer.xml? Right now it is compiled into explorer.swf so in order to point to the 3rd party content we need to re-compile explorer.mxml and under your preferences, go through another release. I think it would have been much more rewarding to the person offering the 3rd party links if we could have hooked him up yesterday. Justin switched to embedding XML to avoid a potential trust file issue when running locally, but I think as soon as you hit the next swf you'll get the same issue. We should just document in the release notes that you have to set up a trust file, and maybe add a global exception handler that says "Hey, you need to set up a trust file". > >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. IMO, no vote is needed prior. It is just a commit and folks can veto. -Alex
