Oh, ok. That hasn't been changed. If I got that right, the release script is generating the build.number based on the current svn revision and then injecting it to the ant target with -Dbuild.number.
The only change we added here was avoiding to include a file with that number in three of the generated swcs, but build.number is still generated and used anywhere else as it was before. Hope this clarifies it then. 2012/12/10 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> > I think Justin was worried about the RSL names when creating an RC. How do > the RSLs get their names? Doesn't the TLF RSL have a different version > appended to its name? Don't the other RSLs go from having a .0.0.0 to some > actual version? > > > On 12/10/12 1:07 PM, "Carol Frampton" <cfram...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > As far as I know the sdk build isn't using the build.number files (the > > installer has one which is being used). build.number is a "magic" file > > which the ant build number task uses. > > > > There is a build.number property in the top-level build.properties file > > which is overridden with the svn rev for release builds with > > -Dbuild.number=<svn last changed rev> on the command line of the build. > > > > Carol > > > > On 12/10/12 3 :44PM, "Chema Balsas" <jbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> I did a full mustella run over the weekend (it takes my computer over 12 > >> hours...). In an initial pass, I got about 70 errors or so with the swcs > >> not including version.properties. Then I reverted the changes and run > the > >> mustella on the failures getting the same errors, the changes don't seem > >> to > >> introduce any new errors. > >> > >> @Justin Since you were the one to raise concerns about this, does this > >> look > >> good to you? > >> > >> To wrap it up, in the other thread Gordon said: > >> > >> I think Adobe's build machines had some scripts that set build.number to > >>> the Perforce revision number that it was building. > >> > >> > >> I assumed this was being used to keep track of the released versions of > >> some swcs. Can someone on Adobe confirm or further comment on this? What > >> strikes me as odd is that only those 3 swcs were including this file. Is > >> there some explanation for this, or is this maybe just some code left > from > >> the donation process? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Chema > >> > >> 2012/12/8 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> > >> > >>> There was a discussion in another thread. Maybe I misunderstood. Anyway > >>> develop branch was broken. Release branch doesn't have this problem. > >>> > >>> Sent from my Motorola ATRIX 4G on AT&T > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original message----- > >>> From: Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> > >>> To: "flex-dev@incubator.apache.org" <flex-dev@incubator.apache.org> > >>> Sent: Sat, Dec 8, 2012 17:33:55 GMT+00:00 > >>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1418709 - in > >>> /incubator/flex/sdk/branches/develop/frameworks/projects: rpc/build.xml > >>> spark/build.xml spark_dmv/build.xml > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>>> Remove version.properties include-file directive from rpc, spark and > >>> spark_dmv as conflicts with compile-config.xml and is currently unused > >>> You might want to double check that it not used in the release build. I > >>> think that the version number is used when generating the RSLs. > >>> > >>> Justin > >>> > > > > -- > Alex Harui > Flex SDK Team > Adobe Systems, Inc. > http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui > >
