I just tried the nightly and it failed on the Google closure library step. Did they change the files again?
Thanks, Om On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > OK, Installing FlexJS Nightly seems to be working again. > > -Alex > > On 7/30/15, 1:51 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > >Well, Peter found an issue with the install script so hold off before > >having others try it. > > > >-Alex > > > >On 7/30/15, 6:25 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > >>I have wired a build from Tuesday into the Installer as the “FlexJS > >>Nightly Build”. You have to right-click and select “Show Dev Builds” to > >>see it in the list. I will update those builds on occasion but not > >>always “nightly”. Please try it and see if all of the externs stuff got > >>in there, and the latest FDB, and if it still works in IJ. > >> > >>Still no word from the MSDN folks so the CI server is still asleep. What > >>form did others use to apply for Apache MSDN? Maybe I’m using the wrong > >>form. > >> > >>-Alex > >> > >>On 7/29/15, 3:37 PM, "Michael Schmalle" <teotigraphix...@gmail.com> > >>wrote: > >> > >>>Alex, you know I was being sarcastic. :) I agree with showing things > >>>that > >>>work. BUT I am hearing stories of "pioneers" that want to try it right > >>>now > >>>and one, have know idea what it is or how to start, two, don't know > >>>where > >>>to start and three, ask people like me that is a developer and I have to > >>>tell them I don't even know how to get a nightly right now. > >>> > >>>So... I guess it would be nice, just to get something in a stable > >>>release > >>>so we have STEP ONE, I know Carlos wants step 10 but we have to get to > >>>step > >>>one right now or else it's going to fail. > >>> > >>>Mike > >>> > >>>On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 7/29/15, 3:24 PM, "Michael Schmalle" <teotigraphix...@gmail.com> > >>>>wrote: > >>>> > >>>> >On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 6:02 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala > >>>> ><bigosma...@gmail.com> > >>>> >wrote: > >>>> > > >>>> >> +1 for a release of FlexJS. It would be great to highlight and > >>>>talk > >>>> >>about > >>>> >> the new version of FlexJS at ApacheCon Europe on Oct 1st, 2015. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> I have been talking to various folks (outside of Apache) about > >>>>FlexJS. > >>>> >>One > >>>> >> feedback I've received is that the version number of 0.02 makes > >>>>folks > >>>> >>think > >>>> >> that it is not ready to be taken seriously. It is hard to convince > >>>> >>folks > >>>> >> to start using it if it has an 'alpha only' sheen to it. I really > >>>>think > >>>> >> that the next version should be at a 1.0 release. Even if it is > >>>>not > >>>> >> perfect, the FlexJS already has a lot of strong things going for > >>>>it. > >>>> I > >>>> >> don't think we should keep it under the covers anymore, i.e. > >>>>keeping > >>>>it > >>>> >>at > >>>> >> a sub 1.0 release version. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> Thoughts? > >>>> >> > >>>> > > >>>> >Or at least 0.5 or 1.0 alpha. :) I know there are 1000's of hours > >>>>into > >>>>the > >>>> >compiler/transpiler/eternc side so having it at 0.0.2 really sucks. > >>>> > > >>>> >I know what Carlos is saying but the damn thing need to just have a > >>>> >release, then release again, and again adding things. This isn't a > >>>>fashion > >>>> >show where you get one walk down the ile, it's iterative. Haha > >>>> > >>>> My philosophy is to set expectations low and exceed them. Once I hear > >>>> that folks on this list are actually building things that work with > >>>>FlexJS > >>>> then I’d say we are ready to tell more folks about it by giving it a > >>>>1.0 > >>>> version. My goal after this release is to try to get something useful > >>>> running. I’m sort of leaning toward this still being 0.0.3 and then > >>>> trying to get that something running and call it 0.5 or 0.9 and then > >>>>if > >>>> someone else is successful that can be 1.0. > >>>> > >>>> I am going to spend a bit of time this week on some polish and trying > >>>>to > >>>> make the Windows side work better out of the box but yes, it should be > >>>> more iterative than once a year going forward. > >>>> > >>>> -Alex > >>>> > >>>> > >> > > > >
