On 1/1/13 2:00 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> 2) Is this a correct implementation? I'm wondering how would we test the
>> next release. As soon as you replace/update that .xml file so we can test
>> the next installer we are forcing everyone to suddenly start taking the next
>> version. I understand you are saying we don't need to "test" the installer
>> ever again, but I think we'd need to at least run it ourselves.
>
> When we make the next release of the SDK we can make teh change to the XML
> (locally) and test the installer at the same time, once the vote has passed we
> distrubite the new SDK and then update the XML file.
Are you suggesting that the workflow is to use the -config switch for
testing? Then we are not testing the final configuration.
>
>> 3) Is it reasonable to suddenly have the .xml file cause a different version
>> to install to the customer's computer?
>
> The new version will only be be downloaded and installed if after the XML fie
> is update the user runs the installers is again. It doesn't happen
> suddenly/automatically.
Right. If we are successful as a TLP, then somewhere in the world at any
given time some developer will be installing some older version of Apache
Flex on a computer. Many Flex shops are stuck on older versions because it
takes a while to approve new versions for use. So they have to install
those old versions again from time to time. And it would be an impediment
if they suddenly got a newer versions instead. Now maybe the app can
remember the last version installed and offer that one as the default and
hint that there is a newer one available like updaters often do, but I don't
think we should surprise them in a scenario like this.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
