I'm giving my +1 (binding IPMC vote)
(1) I've checked the signatures and md5.
(2) I wanted to run the rat report from the src package but needed to change
the build.xml:
$ diff build-save.xml build.xml
1610,1611c1610,1611
< <antcall target="clean-temp" />
< <unzip src="${basedir}/out/${source.kit}.zip" dest="${basedir}/temp"/>
---
> <!--<antcall target="clean-temp" />
> <unzip src="${basedir}/out/${source.kit}.zip"
> dest="${basedir}/temp"/>-->
1613c1613
< <property name="rat.dir" value="${basedir}/temp"/>
---
> <property name="rat.dir" value="${basedir}"/>
I don't think the rat report should be run against a package - it should be run
against the source tree directly.
The rat report then reports as expected.
(2) I wonder if the build can be simplified and not require as much
manipulation of environment variables. I'd like to see a helper script or App
to setup the parameter file: env.properties
There are good examples for some of this, but I really am having trouble
finding where Adobe installed one components on my Mac.
So I cannot properly set env.FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER
(3) There were Java 1.4 vs. Java 5 warnings related to Batik and Velocity. It's
optional, but some effort ought to be made with the those projects to see about
updating to the most current versions and managing any remaining differences as
overrides.
Batik: http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/mail.html#batik-dev
Velocity: http://velocity.apache.org/mail-lists.html
(4) A bunch of Messages from Extensions Manager:
[exec] 2012-07-13 13:11:13.693 Adobe Extension Manager CS5[20292:903] ***
__NSAutoreleaseNoPool(): Object 0xd91e20 of class NSCFString autoreleased with
no pool in place - just leaking
Great work people!
Regards,
Dave
On Jul 13, 2012, at 7:36 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Carol Frampton <cfram...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> ...Please make sure you are voting on Release
>> Candidate 3 not Release Candidate 2.
>
> +1 for the RC3 release, see below for details of what I checked.
>
> I haven't tried building, as an incubation mentor I don't care about
> the technical quality of the release, I'll trust Flex PPMC members to
> check that.
>
> Open questions that do not affect my vote for this first release:
>
> 1) I understand Flex requires a number of external dependencies to
> build, do we have an exact list somewhere to establish that the
> licenses of all required and optional dependencies are compatible? The
> requirements are slightly different for required and optional, see
> http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>
> 2) I don't think my question about how
> ./frameworks/projects/flash-integration/FLA/ContentHolder.fla can be
> proven harmless [1] has been answered.
>
> Thanks for preparing the release!
> -Bertrand
>
> [1]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-flex-dev/201207.mbox/%3CCAEWfVJ%3DaFs6Mv_Cv_28mMH%3DgsNq6YTMYJjyr3oMB7RzGNMTrmg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> Here's what I checked:
> Checked only the *-src-* files, not what's under binaries or docs at
> http://people.apache.org/~cframpton/ApacheFlexRC/release_candidate_3/
>
> MD5 (apache-flex-sdk-4.8.0-incubating-src.tar.gz) =
> 270918333da65e70e90accb005ede1f7
> MD5 (apache-flex-sdk-4.8.0-incubating-src.zip) =
> 0ad59abd7703fcbfc8a3ad9f51c9bd9e
>
> Signatures and digests match, release manager(s) should get their key
> signed at the next opportunity.
>
> The contents of the .zip and .tar.gz archives are identical (with an
> extra apache-flex-sdk-4.8.0-incubating-src path in the tar.gz file,
> not a problem).
>
> DISCLAIMER, LICENSE, NOTICE are present, contents look good to me.
>
> The rat exclusions in build.xml look ok, rat report attached to
> FLEX-33132 looks good to me.
