This crossed paths with my other reply. I do not think we should go with
#2, but if you and Justin feel this is the right thing to do, then that's
what we'll do. I'm out of time for tonight, but will start on prepping
Rcs with #2 tomorrow.
-Alex
On 6/25/14 11:32 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote
On 6/25/14 11:27 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> I do not believe the legal-discuss folks agree that there is a legal
>> requirement, otherwise they would require us to change LICENSE and
>>NOTICE
>> which they have not.
>
>Which is why the advice was to add it to the LICENSE file. While i
Alex, if you don't have an objection to #2, let's go with that?
Thanks,
Om
On Jun 25, 2014 11:16 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>
>
> On 6/25/14 11:07 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >+1 for 2 as :
> >- that's easy to do
> >- complies with legal requirements re acknowledging copyright (which
Hi,
> I do not believe the legal-discuss folks agree that there is a legal
> requirement, otherwise they would require us to change LICENSE and NOTICE
> which they have not.
Which is why the advice was to add it to the LICENSE file. While it's not
mandated by the Apache license, it may be a lega
Erik,
This one test has failed 3 times although other runs in between have
resulted in crashes. All 3 failures are on FP 14. Can we get a run on FP
11 and see if it is player version specific?
The tests pass locally for me on Mac using FP11.1. I don't have access to
my Windows machine right no
On 6/25/14 11:07 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>+1 for 2 as :
>- that's easy to do
>- complies with legal requirements re acknowledging copyright (which are
>in addition to the license terms in some locations)
I do not believe the legal-discuss folks agree that there is a legal
requirement,
Hi,
+1 for 2 as :
- that's easy to do
- complies with legal requirements re acknowledging copyright (which are in
addition to the license terms in some locations)
- is in an obvious place for users to see
- there is precedence in other projects
Justin
Hi,
I just wanted to inform you, that I just committed my changes to Flexmojos
7.1.0-SNAPSHOT. This version reflects changed I did to the Mavenizer that are
currently still in the "mavenizer-refactoring" branch of the flex-utils
repository.
I still want to update the Mavenizer in one thing befo
Returning to this topic after consulting legal-discuss.
The main person who usually responds to me says that we don't have to
modify LICENSE or NOTICE for the Google Fonts. However, he did say that
he has seen other projects modify LICENSE for bundled non-text
dependencies and thinks it is up to
Hi,
> Are you saying that you check in, the version number files with the versions
> in them, create a tag
Yes, although looks like I also missed it on occasion.
> , then revert those changes?
No need to revert as you change the version number after a release is done in
preparation for the next
I think I tagged the wrong commit. There will definitely be an RC2 and
I'll try to get it right then.
Regarding the version files, I'm just following the release guide? Did I
miss that step? Are you saying that you check in files with the versions
in them, create a tag, then revert those change
On 6/25/14 10:26 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
>
>> - compc/mxmlc version incorrect (both report 4.12.0)
>>
>> I asked earlier whether you had FLEX_HOME pointing to 4.12.0. In my
>> tests, the version number was correct.
>
>Why would FLEX_HOME have any effect inside the FlexSDK directory? This
I'd prefer to not waste time maintaining this list. I'd bet the vast
majority of folks are getting their player global via the installer.
-Alex
On 6/25/14 7:58 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Are we going to list out all the globalplayer.swc or stop at 12 [1] in
>>the
>> readme file?
>The
No idea.
On 6/25/14 12:55 PM, "Christofer Dutz" wrote:
>Ok ... now that's a surprise.
>
>Having a look at the playerglobal_rb.swc it seemed to only contain a
>dummy property. So I removed the playerglobal_rb.swc dependencies from
>the Flexmojos build and it seemed to have worked. So I guess the
Hi,
> Are we going to list out all the globalplayer.swc or stop at 12 [1] in the
> readme file?
The URLs are not all the same and may change in the future, having links latest
version make it easier for users to get them IMO. People often want URLs for
other purposes eg CI + that Adobe page is c
Hi,
> I can look at this more in depth later, but are you sure this isn't always
> the case with past releases?
I've not checked them all but when I was RM I checked that this was the case
and checked in the version files before creating a tag.
But it more than just the version files here.
Just
Are we going to list out all the globalplayer.swc or stop at 12 [1] in the
readme file? Should we just reference the [2] flash player download area
if it grows to big?
[1]
http://download.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/updaters/12/playerglobal12_0.swc
[2] https://www.adobe.com/support/flashplaye
+1
I checked the md5 hash and signatures
I read the LICENSE, NOTICE, et al files and they seem OK to me.
Since I was going to check FlexJS, I needed to build this, too, and it
compiled and tested without errors.
Peter Ent
Adobe Systems
+1
I checked the md5 and signatures.
I read through the LICENSE, NOTICE et al files and they seemed fine.
I built from source, created a distro package, copied that to a clean
directory and ran ant -f installer.xml
I used the final FlexJS SDK to build several examples.
Peter Ent
Adobe Systems
Ok ... now that's a surprise.
Having a look at the playerglobal_rb.swc it seemed to only contain a dummy
property. So I removed the playerglobal_rb.swc dependencies from the Flexmojos
build and it seemed to have worked. So I guess the files aren't needed. So what
are they actually for?
Chris
Actually I currently am able to download the playerglobal.swc without problems.
I am currently talking about the resource bundles located in the flex sdk in
frameworks\locale\{locale}\playerblobal_rb.swc
So where do we get this from?
Chris
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: omup...@gmail.c
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> I think we only download player global.swc. But I could be wrong.
>
>
I haven't seen anything about resource bundles, either.
Thanks,
Om
> On 6/25/14 10:53 AM, "Christofer Dutz" wrote:
>
> >Hi guys,
> >
> >While doing some last tests wit
I think we only download player global.swc. But I could be wrong.
On 6/25/14 10:53 AM, "Christofer Dutz" wrote:
>Hi guys,
>
>While doing some last tests with the new Mavenizer, I just noticed that I
>currently don't know where to download playerglobals resource bundles
>from.
>So I guess you ha
http://flex.apache.org/installer/sdk-installer-config-4.0.xml is probably
the best location to look for this. A flash player node looks like this:
http://download.macromedia.com
get/flashplayer/updaters/14/
http://download.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/updaters/14/
playergloba
http://download.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/updaters/12/playerglobal14_0.swc
Is that what you're looking for?
EdB
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Christofer Dutz
wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> While doing some last tests with the new Mavenizer, I just noticed that I
> currently don't know where
I have an ant script that does this, so I'm on it.
EdB
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> OK. I'll try to find time for that unless you have time.
>
> Let me know,
> -Alex
>
> On 6/25/14 10:35 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>
> >I say we try to 'auto-update'. One of the reason
Hi guys,
While doing some last tests with the new Mavenizer, I just noticed that I
currently don't know where to download playerglobals resource bundles from.
So I guess you have solved this in the Installer so could you please post how
to construct the url to download the resource bundles?
Chr
OK. I'll try to find time for that unless you have time.
Let me know,
-Alex
On 6/25/14 10:35 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>I say we try to 'auto-update'. One of the reasons for using CI is to be
>alerted to new issues as soon as possible. The GC Compiler and Library are
>constantly being develope
I say we try to 'auto-update'. One of the reasons for using CI is to be
alerted to new issues as soon as possible. The GC Compiler and Library are
constantly being developed to keep up with the newest standards, browsers
and JS VMs, and our framework should as well.
EdB
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at
Awesome, thanks.
As you may have noted, the build/install script does not pull down the latest
GCL. Do you think we should? I think we've been burned by this in the past
when they make some incompatible change. Right now, we'll end up bundling some
known good version the RM is using.
Though
Done.
EdB
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> On it.
>
> EdB
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>> Thanks for doing this!
>>
>> Do you have time to upgrade the GCL on the builds machine? I don't have
>> my windows machine handy and VMWare is
On it.
EdB
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> Thanks for doing this!
>
> Do you have time to upgrade the GCL on the builds machine? I don't have
> my windows machine handy and VMWare is painful slow. Or maybe you did it
> already, I haven't checked.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
Hi,
Changing my vote to +1 (binding).
Further testing:
- Was able to compile from source
- Tests pass
- Could run data binding example both jS + swf - however swf version of the
example has overlapping text
Minor issues:
- Change "ant all" target to be the default target in Falcon, less confus
Hi,
> You need to build FalconJX first. That will create the lib dir with proper
> contents (dependencies and artefacts).
I thought I had var "ant" but no jsc.jar was produced. Turns out that you need
to do an "ant all". Why isn't this the default target?
Justin
On 6/25/14 9:12 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> So, I'm satisfied the gif and png files we bundle are not from the
>> projects not mentioned in NOTICE and therefore NOTICE is correct.
>
>If you can tell me where they are from I'll be satisfied. It seems
>unlikely that the project hand made
Thanks for doing this!
Do you have time to upgrade the GCL on the builds machine? I don't have
my windows machine handy and VMWare is painful slow. Or maybe you did it
already, I haven't checked.
Thanks,
-Alex
On 6/25/14 8:38 AM, "erikdebr...@apache.org"
wrote:
>Fix tests to use '[qname].bas
Hi,
> So, I'm satisfied the gif and png files we bundle are not from the
> projects not mentioned in NOTICE and therefore NOTICE is correct.
If you can tell me where they are from I'll be satisfied. It seems unlikely
that the project hand made a flag for every country.
Justin
You need to build FalconJX first. That will create the lib dir with proper
contents (dependencies and artefacts).
EdB
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > FALCONJX_HOME points to the parent of a lib folder that contains the
> above
> > files.
>
> I can get it to
Hi,
> FALCONJX_HOME points to the parent of a lib folder that contains the above
> files.
I can get it to compile with 0.0.1 but not 0.0.2FalconJX 0.0.2 doesn't contain
a lib directory in that folder so you may need to change the error text.
Justin
On 6/25/14 8:54 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Yes, these files were in the latest Adobe donation.
>Sure but did Adobe have permission or license to use them? They also
>included in a donation to us playerglobal.swc if I recall :-)
Mistakes have been made in the past (you just found anot
Hi,
> Yes, these files were in the latest Adobe donation.
Sure but did Adobe have permission or license to use them? They also included
in a donation to us playerglobal.swc if I recall :-)
Including people likeness usually requires their express permission (depends on
location - in US there is
On 6/25/14 3:44 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>>We have a set of files in our repo that end up in the source package.
>>Feel
>> free to compare that set against Batik 1.7 which AFAIK, is not bundled
>>in
>> the source package.
>
>I think there is a (minor) issue here for instance we have these bund
Hi Justin,
I can't find mention of some items in your vote in the discuss thread.
Can you repeat the info here?
- code in RC1 doesn't match tag apache-flex-sdk-4.13RC1 (RELEASE_NOTES,
Version.as files + others)
What were some of the content diffs?
- compc/mxmlc version incorrect (both report 4.1
Yes, these files were in the latest Adobe donation.
On 6/25/14 6:13 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Probably no issue at all - just being thorough.
>
>Do we have permission to use these images - as they are likeness of I
>assume real people?
>./examples/EffectsExample/src/jproctor.jpg
>./exa
On 6/25/14 6:33 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
>BUILD FAILED
>/Users/justinmclean/Documents/FlexJS0.0.2RC2/apache-flex-flexjs-0.0.2-src/
>build.xml:274: FALCONJX_HOME must be set to a folder with a lib
>sub-folder containing jsc.jar such as the compiler.jx folder in
>flex-falcon repo or the js fol
Hi,
+1 binding
Checked:
- signatures and md5 hashes all good
- all LICENSE and NOTICE files good
- all source file headers are Apache
- no binaries in source release
- can compile from source
- tests pass
Consider fixing in next RC/release.
- Update REAME with latest Flash Player versions
- Ver
Hi,
-1 binding - unable to compile
Checked:
- md5 and signatures all good
- LICENSE, NOTICE etc all good
- all source files have correct headers
- no unwanted binaries in source release
- can't compile (see below)
BUILD FAILED
/Users/justinmclean/Documents/FlexJS0.0.2RC2/apache-flex-flexjs-0.0.
Hi,
Probably no issue at all - just being thorough.
Do we have permission to use these images - as they are likeness of I assume
real people?
./examples/EffectsExample/src/jproctor.jpg
./examples/EffectsExample/src/twong.jpg
And is this logo OK? It looks made up so probably is.
examples/Mobil
Hi Alex,
I have tested my production level Flex AIR Mobile and Desktop projects using
Flex SDK 4.13.0 RC1 + AIR 14, they are all good, haven't found any compile-time
or runtime issues.
DarkStone
2014-06-25
At 2014-06-24 00:26:44, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>This is the discussion thread.
>
>
Hi,
> Are we looking at the same Velocity NOTICE? My copy just says:
> "This product includes software developed by The Apache Software
> Foundation (http://www.apache.org/)."
Yes. I can't find anything that say it must be included so lets leave it as it
is.
I find it rather odd that you can't
Hi,
> Are you running diff with -w? Bertrand said that was ok. Otherwise, what
> actual content is different in a few of these?
Sorry my mistake I did forget the -w there - all looks good to me with that
option.
There is an issue with the 4.13.0 SDK tag (in the other thread).
Thanks,
Justin
Hi,
-1 (binding) for now. While mostly relatively minor issues and none on their
own would be a blocker, IMO correctively there's enough for another RC.
- sigs and md5 all good
- LICENSE fine
- may be issue with NOTICE file (see discussion)
- minor issues with RELEASE_NOTE and README (see discus
On 6/25/14 12:41 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>HI,
>
>> The Velocity NOTICE appears to just contain the standard ASF notice, so
>>I
>> don't believe we have to mention it?
>My understanding is yes it needs to be mentioned.
>
>> I'm not seeing how the "deps of deps" section would change that.
>It
On 6/24/14 8:23 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote:
>
>>
>> >- Two flash player 14s showing in down down list - this is going to
>>cause
>> >some confusion*
>> This can be changed in the website copy of the -config.xml
>
>I think this is required. The way the Installer is setup, you can't match
>
Are you running diff with -w? Bertrand said that was ok. Otherwise, what
actual content is different in a few of these?
I know you are busy, and theoretically I have more time to spend on this
than you, but it would be helpful if you would provide enough detail so I
don't have to guess how to re
HI,
> The Velocity NOTICE appears to just contain the standard ASF notice, so I
> don't believe we have to mention it?
My understanding is yes it needs to be mentioned.
> I'm not seeing how the "deps of deps" section would change that.
It depends on what their NOTICES contain.
> Also from [1]: "
ContentHolder.fla was approved by mentors.
The other files I will deal with for the next RC.
Thanks for finding those.
-Alex
On 6/24/14 9:27 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Decided to look though the binaries images and the like we have in our
>source release.
>
>This image includes the Ad
On 6/24/14 11:45 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Shoudl the source releae contain enough to make a release?
Don't think that's a requirement (policy only says 'build' not 'release'),
but I don't have any objection to adding that to the source-package.
-Alex
On 6/24/14 11:17 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> It would help me, and maybe others, if you would propose fixes, instead
>>of
>> just pointing out problems and making the RM guess as to what will
>>satisfy
>> you.
>
>It about satisfying the requirements as mandated by Apache not me.
>
>The
59 matches
Mail list logo
