As Alex said, most people who want to try out FlexJS 0.5.0 will simply use the Apache Flex SDK Installer. It'll be super easy for them. In fact, you can already install the nightlies and RC1 using the installer if you right-click and choose Show Dev Builds. Once 0.5.0 is released, the build will show up on the regular list, obviously.
People who are having trouble with building are trying to build from the source distribution and/or the Git repository. Things are a little more complicated that way, but the vast majority of people won't need to deal with that type of build. - Josh On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 3:21 PM, jude <flexcapaci...@gmail.com> wrote: > Alex, > I'm going to go ahead and put together an app so that you can install > FlexJS with one click and compile. I want it to be as simple as possible > for anyone (new web developers). I've downloaded the build script and > looked over it but there is some code in it for voting and release. I'm > sure you will be repeating yourself again but here's my requirements: > > • button to validate FlexJS requirements (paths, etc) > • button to set paths for the user > • one button to download FlexJS > • another button to run FlexJS on a project app (without an IDE) > > Are there targets to do each of these (or where should I start)? Since it's > an AIR app I want to run each target independently. BTW I'm bundling ant > with the app so that the user doesn't have to install anything extra. If > someone has FB or IntelliJ installed does the install directory need to > change? I'll put the project on github or post it to the group as soon as > it's usable. > > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:32 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 11/5/15, 3:56 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >I’m a bit confused about the release process. > > > > > >I thought we were creating release branches in git for each release to > > >“freeze” the code, so we do not have a wildly moving target. It does not > > >seem like that’s happening, so I’m not sure if I just misunderstood. > > > > You understand correctly. I’m cheating right now because it is just more > > work to set up release branches, and there isn’t a lot of non-critical > > work going on the develop branch. Peter and I are working on the back > > port from JS to AS in a separate branch. Only important fixes are being > > pushed to develop. If we had more folks contributing more often, then I > > would have used a release branch. > > > > Even release branches have historically moved because folks don’t start > > testing until late in the game and find important bugs. > > > > -Alex > > > > > > > >Harbs > > > > > >On Nov 3, 2015, at 12:04 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> On 10/30/15, 3:19 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> > wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi, > > >>> > > >>>> Hmm, I was hoping more PMC folks would respond. Remember that, > > >>>> according > > >>>> to the release process, the PMC folks planning to vote are supposed > to > > >>>> be > > >>>> running tests now. In theory, the only new test to be run after we > > >>>> start > > >>>> the vote is whether the PGP signature is valid. > > >>> > > >>> We’re continually trying to test a moving target which involves a > > >>>greater > > >>> time commitment that I currently have available. You’ve never quite > > >>>sure > > >>> if the version you testing is going to be the version in the release > > >>> candidate and unless you very carefully follow all of the commits > it’s > > >>> not obvious what needs to be retested at two different time > intervals. > > >> > > >> Hmm, pleading is working so maybe I’ll try guilt-tripping. > > >> > > >> Yes, the nightly builds are a moving target. IMO, we all want to grow > > >>the > > >> community by attracting customers and hopefully convert a few to be > > >> committers and the only way I know to do it is to keep making the code > > >> better and releasing the best release we can in the most efficient > > >>manner. > > >> IMO, freezing a branch and not allowing important bug fixes that might > > >> make a difference in whether someone becomes more active in our > > >>community > > >> doesn’t make sense. Taking the time to build out an RC and post it > and > > >> start a vote thread in order to finally get some testing isn’t very > > >> efficient either. > > >> > > >> Historically, when we produced an RC and immediately started a release > > >> vote, bugs would be found and we’d cancel the RC and roll out another > > >>one. > > >> The goal of the release process we voted in, IMO, was to reduce this > > >> overhead of posting RCs, opening and closing vote threads, etc. so we > > >>can > > >> more efficiently achieve the goal of serving our customers and > > >>attracting > > >> some of them to becoming committers so we can have more people find > bugs > > >> sooner by working with the develop branch. > > >> > > >> Recently, I’ve spent several days on improving build and approval > > >>scripts > > >> so testing what is in development takes less time. In theory, you can > > >>now > > >> start up the approval script which will pull down the bits, answer a > few > > >> questions, then go do something else for 5 to 25 minutes and then come > > >> back and poke at it. I would have rather spent that time on features > > >>for > > >> our customers, but I gambled that this would help us get the release > out > > >> sooner. I’m not sure that paid off. > > >> > > >> > > >> I don’t have any other ideas on how to make it easier for those of you > > >>who > > >> contribute in your spare time to stay up on the commits and bugs. It > > >> should be ok to take any nightly build and run it through your tests > and > > >> report your findings. Ideally, you would be up to date on the commits > > >>and > > >> bugs and other discussions to know whether what you find is a > duplicate > > >>or > > >> not, but at this point, I don’t care if you report a duplicate. At > > >>least > > >> that means you verified a bunch of other code paths worked for you. I > > >> don’t know how other Apache projects with really active code bases do > > >>it. > > >> > > >> It is certainly fine to be too busy to vote on a release. I was > hoping > > >>to > > >> get more folks to poke at the bits before starting a vote because it > > >>will > > >> be a waste of community energy to start a vote and then have a bunch > of > > >> PMC voters jump in and start reporting important bugs. But I think > the > > >> community has waited too long already, so I am going to start a vote > > >>soon, > > >> and Peter and I will vote and maybe Josh and/or Harbs and we’ll be > good > > >>to > > >> go. Hopefully any others jumping in late won’t find release blockers > > >>and > > >> we’ll just make another release later. > > >> > > >> > > >> -Alex > > > > > > > >
