On 10/20/14, 4:57 PM, "Ted Dunning" <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> >wrote: > >> > 4) you aren't claiming that the artifact you created is an Apache >>release >> > and you are pointing some workshop participants at your release. >> >> My understanding is Alex does want to use this as an official release >>and >> have the officially released Apache Flex installer download and install >>it. We don’t have to do that. The bits on dist/mirrors can stay untouched, and the downloads page won’t change either. The main thing is whether the Installer app can point somewhere else. >> The new binary would be available to everyone / the general public and >>not >> just the people attending the talk. This is true. Anyone using the Installer would get the modified binary. > >No vote, not official. > >If he wants to build his own installer, fine. If it says it is >downloading >an Apache artifact, it should be voted. The Installer has a DropDown list of releases, such as “Apache Flex SDK 4.13.0” and “Apache FlexJS 0.0.2”. What if the entry that points to the modified package says “Apache FlexJS 0.0.2 (unofficial)” or “Unofficial Fix for Apache FlexJS 0.0.2”? But it would be the same Installer, not my own. Or does that get into the “promoting nightly builds” territory even though all the compiled code came from an official release? -Alex
