I have to disagree about the no control part. Mustella got partially in this week because some of you wanted it done that way. I could drop the rest of mustella and start scrubbing the falcon js code but I thought we agreed that a verification suite was more important.
Btw, no need to have sympathy for Adobe communications. Sent from my Motorola ATRIX™ 4G on AT&T -----Original message----- From: "Michael A. Labriola" <labri...@digitalprimates.net> To: "flex-dev@incubator.apache.org" <flex-dev@incubator.apache.org> Sent: Sat, May 5, 2012 01:42:35 GMT+00:00 Subject: RE: FalcoJs >:) True, my wording was too harsh for sure, I retract "100%". But my point was >that the blog post wording originally was such that it very much made it sound >like FalconJS was going to live or die based solely on >Apache Flex team, >whereas in reality at this point in time only Adobe has anything at all to do >with FalconJS ever seeing the light of day. And the updated wording still >partially sounded the same. Well, if Doug is too harsh then let me say it this way. Apache Flex has NO control over this. Unless the code is sitting in your inbox Alex and you have decided not to commit it yet, then we have absolutely nothing to do with it and Adobe should make that clear. > This is a developer's blog. It is not an official statement. >>For better or worse, that blog post is the first link on google when >>searching for FalconJS, and I can't find anything more official from Adobe, >>and Adobe is still in control of the code. I'd say that's as official a >>source as >>there is, and it's more official than anything posted on an >>Apache Flex wiki until the code actually lives in Apache Flex. Yeh all my sympathy for Adobe mea culpa communication is gone for some reason. Developer blog or not, this under the Adobe banner and it is Adobe communication as such. That post indicates that Apache has control of something it does not. It's a misrepresentation of the truth and effectively makes it look like Apache has control of something it does not.
