Hi, > I think removing 3rdparty.xml and updating the RELEASE_NOTES would be > sufficient.
But then the release notes would not reflect what has actually been added in the source release which is what they need to represent. OR are you suggesting we have different release notes for the binary and source? >>> Or at minimum, mention in RELEASE_NOTES that 3rd-party support isn’t fully >>> implemented. That a possibility but could require a whole new release candidate just for a minor read me change. IMO The issue can be raised in JIRA. > IMO, suggesting the documentation of a known defect in the RELEASE_NOTES > does not turn this discussion into a “bike shed” topic. So every release note should list all outstanding JIRA bugs and issues? Every release we're done has had know issues and we certainly don't list them all. > We haven’t heard from folks who thought it was a minor issue before my > report on the root cause, so maybe we should confirm their thoughts. As the release manager I think it is a minor issue but let's hear from other people. The improvements to the examples (in terms and look and feel) are significant and the usage of Tour De Flex is significant - now approaching 20,000 visits (each visit looking at multiple examples) and 15,000 unique visitors. That enough reason to make a release rather than prolonging this process by weeks or months.The existing Tour De flex has some very ugly examples that have been fixed in this release. > Plus, we now have more options for them to consider. IMO, the several > options are: > > 1) Ship the current source without documenting a known defect, which is > that third party content may not position and size correctly, and/or > despite the RELEASE_NOTES mentioning 3rd party support, there won’t be 3rd > party examples on the flex.a.o TDF site. > 2) Document the known defect > 3) Remove/hide the 3rd party feature and remove its mention from the > RELEASE_NOTES and JIRA. > 3) Wait a bit longer and decide on how to properly load 3rd party SWFs > then implement it > 4) Change the implementation to link to 3rd party sites instead of loading > their SWFs. So how do we reach consensus on this in a timely way? If the process doesn't allow a vote and/or people don't vote it's basically dead in the water. I would like to see this released sooner than later and not have releases hanging for weeks, not everyone is full time on this project and increasing the length of the release process stops people from being able to be a release manager. If we had stuck to the official recommend process we probably would of released by now. The previous version of Tour De Flex had two release candidates and was released in 10 days from start of the first RC vote to the final vote result. > And I don’t see any major hurry to ship TDF 1.2 The improvements to the examples is reasonably significant and I don't wee why we should delay in releasing. Obviously I wouldn't of proposed a release in the first place if I didn't think their was a need. > so I’m also content to wait and engage the 3rd party contributors and > decide on a proper strategy for loading their content. My guess is that don't actually care that much, they would rather like to see their examples in Tour De Flex sooner than later. It's also curious as to why you only decide to bring this content load strategy up now and state it as a blocker for releasing, rather than when we we were discussing adding 3rd party support for it several months ago. Thanks, Justin
