On 9/6/14 12:44 AM, "Justin Mclean" <justinmcl...@me.com> wrote:
>Hi, > >> I did a little digging. It looks like the main/build.xml is not set up >>to >> reproduce the Adobe swcs. > >Certainly looks that way. I wonder what the intention was? I assume they >are not still around to ask? I could ask, but they may not remember. IMO, they were doing the "logical" thing. If you have N folders of code and produce SWCs named A, B, C..N, I would expect the classes in folder A to go in SWC A, etc. The Adobe SWCs are not organized this way, but the build.xml that we got attempts to set it up that way. So, IMO, they were re-organizing, and made (so far) one mistake. > >> There appears to be one thing that almost has to be a bug, and that is >> what the OP found > >So question is this bad enough to fix and make a 1.1 release right away >or do we wait until we do a few other things before making a 1.1 release? I wouldn't rush a new release, but if you have cycles to tweak the build scripts and provide dev builds to the OP to make sure we have it right, I'd guess he'd appreciate it and we'd have higher confidence in the next release. And hopefully we'll know what the LICENSE should look like soon too. -Alex
