Thank you Greg, Piotr, and Josh. We need one vote more to get this released. Any volunteers (especially new ones who have not done this yet)? We can guide you through it if the instructions are not clear.
From: Greg Dove<mailto:greg.d...@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 2:58 AM To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.9 RC4 Just a couple of notes from me: Future improvements in README --------------------------------------------- playerglobal I think the section on playerglobal should be re-written or removed. The links to the original Adobe download appear to be no longer working (for download). And I assume now that as Royale is generating its own playerglobal.swc (thanks to Josh) it either needs to be updated to mention that, or the section removed from README (as something that is special-cased/noteworthy) because it is no longer relevant as an external dependency. Air Download links do not work for Adobe AIR (but do provide information about Harman). Should this section be updated? Test of TourDeJewel --------------------------- There are some minor inconsistencies between ant and maven: While both the maven and ant builds work, the ant build is missing some runtime assets which the maven build is including (e.g. Jewel logo in top left). Error logging observed in js dev console: Both builds show a runtime error when selecting the 'No Submenu' menu option. This is a bug in TDJ itself, nothing to do with the SDK build. Just noting it for attention... On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 10:45 AM Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev> wrote: > Hmmm... In RC4, I have now reproduced the ASDoc build issue that I > mentioned previously, both with -Duse-flash=true and without it. Even > without AIR_HOME being specified in the case of the JS-only build. However, > it doesn't seem to reproduce every time. I guess that I just got unlucky > when I was testing RC3, where it seemed to consistently affect the JS-only > SDK. This time around, it seems to affect the JS+SWF SDK just as frequently > on the same machine. > > Anyway, I agree with Alex that this issue doesn't need to block the > release. I'm going to comment out the ASDoc example from the build, and if > the approval script gets through everything else, I'm happy. I plan to vote > +1, assuming that my remaining manual tests in VSCode and elsewhere all > look good too. > > -- > Josh Tynjala > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 10:43 AM <apacheroyal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > This is the discussion thread. > > > > Thanks, > > Yishay Weiss >
