On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
> I would prefer not to have to go through the process of releasing a 4.8.1. > I think 4.9 and its installer will generate enough RC's and release voting. > > In that case, the option is for installer v.2 to support both workflows. It will take time to implement, but should be worth the wait. > A 4.8.1 would require at minimum some sanity checks that the version of TLF > we embed with it works and is the same as the one Adobe shipped. There is > a > newer version of TLF being validated for 4.9. > > Not sure what you mean by "There is a newer version of TLF being validated for 4.9." Who is doing the validating? > > On 12/11/12 6:03 PM, "Om" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > >> I'm not sure I understand the plan. There are plenty of Adobe > dependencies > >> even in 4.9. > >> > >> > > The suggestion is that Installer v.2 would support Flex 4.8.1 and 4.9 > > > > Flex 4.8.1 would just be Flex 4.8 + TLF > > > > Flex 4.9 would not change. > > > > This way, anyone who wants to download Flex 4.8 would need installer v.1 > > Anyone who uses installer v.2 can chose between Flex 4.8.1 and Flex 4.9 > > > > This way, we remove the code to download TLF from Adobe. This makes life > > easier for us because we dont have to maintain two different flows in the > > installer. > > > > > > > >> > >> On 12/11/12 5:26 PM, "Om" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> I kind of like this idea. But is this something folks want to do? > >>> > >>> Should we take a poll on this? > >>> > >>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Hans | dotdotcommadot < > >>> h...@dotdotcommadot.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> In my opinion we should be able to download all SDK's from the > >> installer. > >>>> > >>>> And to be completely independent from adobe stuff, we should be able > to > >>>> get the entire SDK a full "apache" library, even in 2 years from now. > >>>> So i would go for the 4.8.1 release with embeddded TLF, no? > >>>> A clean solution that will last a while. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 11 Dec 2012, at 23:42, Om <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Justin Mclean < > >> jus...@classsoftware.com > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> As previously external components (ex. TLF) become internal to > Apache > >>>>>>> Flex, it is going to be quite hairy to get the licenses workflow > >> going. > >>>>>>> Any thoughts on this? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> TLF now doesn't require you to accept an license it's part of the > Flex > >>>>>> SDK/licensed under Apache. > >>>>> Exactly my point. Should Installer v.2 support both Flex 4.8 and 4.9 > >> or > >>>>> just 4.9? > >>>>> If we want to support both in the same installer app, then it means > >>>> quite a > >>>>> bit of work to ensure that workflows are supported (one with external > >>>>> loading of TLF, one without). > >>>>> > >>>>> Or do we want to create a 4.8.1 version with TLF baked into it? Then > >>>> there > >>>>> is no need for external loading of TLF and we can do away with that > >> piece > >>>>> completely. > >>>>> > >>>>> I raised these issues earlier, but I guess it got buried somewhere. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> Justin > >>>> > >> > >> -- > >> Alex Harui > >> Flex SDK Team > >> Adobe Systems, Inc. > >> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui > >> > >> > > -- > Alex Harui > Flex SDK Team > Adobe Systems, Inc. > http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui > >
