On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
> > > 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? > > Everything Justin listed. Most importantly, the binary artifact on the website being different from the released source package. If someone decides to create a branch and we end up creating a swf from that branch by mistake, it becomes even more complicated. > >> 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. > Everytime someone comes to the flex.apache.org/tourdeflex page, they are essentially downloading and running it, albeit via the browser. > Although there is a nightly installer build for Windows available. > An update to installer config xml does not trigger a new build. In any case, I don't see how this relevant. > > 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. > I want to separate explorer.xml and thirdparty.xml. exploerer.xml can get embedded, but thirdparty.xml will have to be downloaded everytime, preferably should be non-cacheable by the browser. > > 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". > We have the same issue with the Installer badge. We employ a simple technique to avoid this issue when running locally. Perhaps we should build an AIR based shell of TourDeFlex and avoid using a browser when running locally. > > > > >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. > I am fine with that. Thanks, Om > > -Alex > >
