I still don't know if we have the header right for:
./FlexUnit4CIListener/src/org/flexunit/listeners/TestCaseReport.as
./FlexUnit4CIListener/src/org/flexunit/listeners/TestSuiteReport.as
I know Mike says they totally rewrote the CIListener, but it sure looks
like Xavi checked these two support fi
Hi
And of course this is for RC3 not RC2.
Thanks,
Justin
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Release-Apache-Flex-FlexUnit-4-2-0-RC2-tp36489p36491.html
Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hi,
Please place all of the discussion here and not in the [VOTE] thread.
Thanks,
Justin
>OK, I just wanted to make sure. If the agreement was similar to the one Adobe
>had you sign when submitting patches then I think we're set on LICENSE and
>NOTICE. If the agreement was more Apache-like, then Brian has copyright and
>DP has license and then we may need to ask him.
Yep, we basi
Hi,
> Agreed. I'm learning something new every time there is a post on that
> thread.
Yep note that a binary release is the RM repressibility and are not voted on.
Not saying care shouldn't be taken in producing it but the vote is only counts
on the source package.
Justin
Agreed. I'm learning something new every time there is a post on that
thread.
On 3/27/14 10:55 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>In a current licensing conversation on the incubator list this issue has
>just been bought up and states that for source releases there is no need
>to add to the LIC
Hi,
In a current licensing conversation on the incubator list this issue has just
been bought up and states that for source releases there is no need to add to
the LICENSE file for any MIT or BSD licences. For binary releases it a little
more complex as the ASF provides no guidance for binary
On 3/27/14 7:16 PM, "Michael A. Labriola"
wrote:
>>I would change the notice to say that some of the code (instead of
>>original, since original is Adobe) was developed by DP.
>
>It was not originally Adobe code. FlexUnit 4 is a complete rewrite. We
>included FlexUnit1 for backward compatibilit
On 3/27/14 7:16 PM, "Michael A. Labriola"
wrote:
>
>DP had an agreement with all contributors and we have the right to donate
>the code. If there is any concern, we can try to reach out to Brian and
>also get him to sign a grant.
OK, I just wanted to make sure. If the agreement was similar to t
Hi,
> The person who answered on legal-discuss said he "would expect" that the
> LICENSE file made it clear which files were mapped to these non-AL
> licenses as well as having the correct headers in the source.
It clear from the header on those file and there's nothing about doing that at
[1] s
The person who answered on legal-discuss said he "would expect" that the
LICENSE file made it clear which files were mapped to these non-AL
licenses as well as having the correct headers in the source.
So, I figure we should do it just to be safe. You may not need to list
every file if you can li
>Sorry about that - changed to Apache header and checked in.
No worries. Easy mistake as they were in similar packages. I just want Apache
headers on everything that can have them.
Mike
>I would change the notice to say that some of the code (instead of original,
>since original is Adobe) was developed by DP.
It was not originally Adobe code. FlexUnit 4 is a complete rewrite. We included
FlexUnit1 for backward compatibility. FlexUnit 4 will run without a single line
of Adobe c
Hi,
> And these 2 files were missing from the list which I assume should be Adobe
> licensed.
>> /FlexUnit4UIListener/src/org/flexunit/flexui/data/filter/IgnoredTestFunctionStatus.as
> No, we wrote this one
>
>> /FlexUnit4UIListener/src/org/flexunit/listeners/UIListener.as
> No, this one was ou
And these 2 files were missing from the list which I assume should be Adobe
licensed.
>/FlexUnit4UIListener/src/org/flexunit/flexui/data/filter/IgnoredTestFunctionStatus.as
No, we wrote this one
>/FlexUnit4UIListener/src/org/flexunit/listeners/UIListener.as
No, this one was ours
Hi,
> And in license list the files not under Apache
There is no need to list the files as far as I'm aware as the header give the
licence. [1]
Justin
1. https://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
Hi,
> I'm offline now. Did you add the work around for github download to the
> release notes?
In the README:
Also if you use Java SDK 1.7 you may encounter SSL errors when
downloading
3rd party files as part of the build process to fix this issue
On Windows
Hi,
> I would change the notice to say that some of the code (instead of
> original, since original is Adobe) was developed by DP.
"Some" is probably misleading as most of the code was done by DP (more than
2100 files are now Apache licensed, less than 70 are Adobe licenced)
This is probably mo
And in license list the files not under Apache
Sent via the PANTECH Discover, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone.
Alex Harui wrote:
I'm offline now. Did you add the work around for github download to the release
notes?
Sent via the PANTECH Discover, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone.
Alex Harui wrote:
I wo
I'm offline now. Did you add the work around for github download to the release
notes?
Sent via the PANTECH Discover, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone.
Alex Harui wrote:
I would change the notice to say that some of the code (instead of
original, since original is Adobe) was developed by DP.
The LIC
I would change the notice to say that some of the code (instead of
original, since original is Adobe) was developed by DP.
The LICENSE file should have the flex lib MIT license with including
copyright, and the Adobe BSD with copyright.
I would like to hear from Mike about the contributor agreeme
Hi,
Going through and fixing the headers I noticed that this file Is from flexlib
(MIT licensed).
/FlexUnit4UIListener/src/org/flexunit/flexui/controls/PromptingTextInput.as
And these 2 files were missing from the list which I assume should be Adobe
licensed.
/FlexUnit4UIListener/src/org/
On 3/26/14 9:06 AM, "Michael A. Labriola"
wrote:
>>I checkout out the code from fluint.googlecode.com. An examination of
>>the logs indicates that Xavi contributed files in FlexUnit4CIRunner as
>>well as FlexUnit4UIRunner. Does that match your understanding? Were
>>>those files brought into
>I checkout out the code from fluint.googlecode.com. An examination of the
>logs indicates that Xavi contributed files in FlexUnit4CIRunner as well as
>FlexUnit4UIRunner. Does that match your understanding? Were >those files
>brought into GitHub?
The UIRunner yes, it morphed into the UI List
Hi Mike,
I checkout out the code from fluint.googlecode.com. An examination of the
logs indicates that Xavi contributed files in FlexUnit4CIRunner as well as
FlexUnit4UIRunner. Does that match your understanding? Were those files
brought into GitHub?
I also see he made a small change to some o
>And in it I found AbstractRowData.as which looks exactly like the one on
>github for FlexUnit4 that Mike linked to earlier in this thread. I
haven't done any forensics on who checked it in and when, but keep in mind that
I am assuming that this code base on Adobe svn is the source for FlexUnit
>Thicker still, I found this:
>http://opensource.adobe.com/svn//opensource/flexunit/trunk/FlexUnitLib/
Good find Alex. I didn't realize the UI was checked in here. This looks like
the original version checked in by Alistair on August 15th, 2008. I think we
can use this repo as part of our refere
Thicker still, I found this:
http://opensource.adobe.com/svn//opensource/flexunit/trunk/FlexUnitLib/
And in it I found AbstractRowData.as which looks exactly like the one on
github for FlexUnit4 that Mike linked to earlier in this thread. I
haven't done any forensics on who checked it in and whe
Hi,
> Some files were not changed. So those headers have to stay as Adobe.
> Adobe legal wants all files that ever had Adobe headers to stay with Adobe
> headers.
Can they supply a list of these files as I have no way of working out which
ones these were.
> I don't know if you saw the legal-di
>Sadly I can't even get at the original source code to compare now vs then as
>it look like Adobe removed it from source forge. There's only a binary
>download.
The plot thickens.
I went through old emails like an auditor and found a bit more detail. The
original code was committed by Xavi Beu
Hi,
> Well, the thing I don't understand is, that this is a collection of files
> some of which were changed significantly, but some not.
Do you know that to be the case? Sadly I can't even get at the original source
code to compare now vs then as it look like Adobe removed it from source forge.
Some files were not changed. So those headers have to stay as Adobe.
Adobe legal wants all files that ever had Adobe headers to stay with Adobe
headers.
I don't know if you saw the legal-discuss thread and my question on
private@, but it looks like we may have some homework to do before we
releas
On 3/24/14 5:07 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> IMO, the Adobe code is a third-party work as defined here:
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
>
>Note that in this case I believe it would fall under:
>"5. Major modifications/additions to third-party should be dealt with
Hi,
> IMO, the Adobe code is a third-party work as defined here:
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
Note that in this case I believe it would fall under:
"5. Major modifications/additions to third-party should be dealt with on a
case-by-case basis by the PMC."
Not this:
"4. M
IMO, the Adobe code is a third-party work as defined here:
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
The Adobe code would not be a third-party work if there was an agreement
with DP giving DP rights.
But once there are significant modifications, it appears we may need to
consult legal-d
>2) The code was modified by DP folks.
It was modified significantly as the original code was intended to work with
FlexUnit .9 alone and we modified it to work with both projects.
>It is important to verify that the copyright license text is not MPL.
It's a BSD-2 header.
Mike
Hi,
> All of the FlexUnit code on Open@Adobe appears to be under BSD.
> Therefore, two scenarios are "ok"
> 1) The code on Open@Adobe is being used without modification
> 2) The code was modified by DP folks.
As Mike stated the code was modified from FU 0.9 by Digital Primates. Mike can
you recon
I am, of course, not a lawyer, nor an expert on these matter.
IMO, the key question is whether any Adobe employee wrote any code that
got donated to Apache that is not available on Open@Adobe. A secondary
question is whether any code that is on Open@Adobe that has an Adobe
copyright can be in the
Hi,
> It was originally written (at least primarily) by Alex Uhlmann for FlexUnit
> .9. Here is a reference to one of the classes in the original form in github:
>
> https://github.com/flexunit/flexunit/blob/master/FlexUnit4UIListener/src/org/flexunit/flexui/data/AbstractRowData.as
Which IMO me
>Are we talking about a single file here?
>https://github.com/apache/flex-flexunit/blob/master/FlexUnit4Test/src/UIRunner.mxml
No, we are talking about the code in the tag below:
Which resides here:
https://github.com/apache/flex-flexunit/tree/master/FlexUnit4UIListener
It was originally writ
Hi,
Are we talking about a single file here?
https://github.com/apache/flex-flexunit/blob/master/FlexUnit4Test/src/UIRunner.mxml
If so I think that can be rewritten easily enough.
Justin
Hi,
> I will probably have to find time for that (and the FlexUnit1 code as
> well).
While having FlexUnit1 would removed a dependancy it's not a potential blocker
to releasing FlexUnit as this may be.
Do we know who even worked on this at Adobe?
> The issue is that there code is in our repo
>
On 3/24/14 2:02 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> In a work-for-hire model, it isn't really a donation, and the hiring
>>party
>> generally owns the code unless there is an agreement that says
>>otherwise.
>
>Assuming this is the case Alex can you get Adobe to officially donate it?
I will pr
Hi,
> In a work-for-hire model, it isn't really a donation, and the hiring party
> generally owns the code unless there is an agreement that says otherwise.
Assuming this is the case Alex can you get Adobe to officially donate it?
However this may not be an issue as FlexUnit (and I assume this c
On 3/24/14 9:28 AM, "Michael A. Labriola"
wrote:
>>I'd like Labriola to verify that DP should be in the NOTICE and whether
>>anyone else like Adobe should also be in there.
>
>I will make time to review but may have some questions as I feel a bit
>mal-informed on procedure on these fronts.
>
>M
>I'd like Labriola to verify that DP should be in the NOTICE and whether anyone
>else like Adobe should also be in there.
I will make time to review but may have some questions as I feel a bit
mal-informed on procedure on these fronts.
Members of Adobe Consulting did write and donate the UIRunn
On 3/23/14 8:36 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
>> Are you going to run another RC or do you think this one is good enough?
>Digital Primates missing from the NOTICE file probably is a blocker so
>I'll be making another one but votes will probably carry over.
I'd like Labriola to verify that DP sh
Hi,
> Maybe just for me. My repo is valid. I guess it isn't an "installation"?
> It builds everything else, including AIR projects. I don't know how much
> interaction there is between flex-sdk and flex-flexunit
It a little hard to use one with out the other, although I think it can be used
to
On 3/23/14 6:34 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Ah, so the build script doesn't handle building from a repo. It
>>requires
>> an SDK set up for IDEs.
>
>It requires an installed SDK set up as per the README in "Install
>Prerequisites"
> *3) FLEX_HOME should be set to a valid Apache Flex i
Hi,
> Ah, so the build script doesn't handle building from a repo. It requires
> an SDK set up for IDEs.
It requires an installed SDK set up as per the README in "Install Prerequisites"
*3) FLEX_HOME should be set to a valid Apache Flex installation.
Do you think that needs to be clearer?
Tha
On 3/23/14 2:14 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Is /Users/aharui/git/flex/master/flex-sdk/frameworks a real working SDK
>with AIR?
Ah, so the build script doesn't handle building from a repo. It requires
an SDK set up for IDEs.
-Alex
Hi,
> Should there be mention of how to swap out Flash Builder's flexunit for
> this one in the readme?
Documented here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLEX/FlexUnit+Setting+up+a+project
Justin
Hi,
> Side not on this. The way to swamp out Flash Builder's version is convoluted.
>
> Good reference:
> http://probertson.com/articles/2011/05/03/flash-builder-4-5-tip-use-a-custom-flexunit-sdk/
I always just copied the flexunit swcs to the lib folder and that seems to work
fine.
Justin
Hi,
Is /Users/aharui/git/flex/master/flex-sdk/frameworks a real working SDK with
AIR?
Justin
>Should there be mention of how to swap out Flash Builder's flexunit for this
>one in the readme?
Side not on this. The way to swamp out Flash Builder's version is convoluted.
Good reference:
http://probertson.com/articles/2011/05/03/flash-builder-4-5-tip-use-a-custom-flexunit-sdk/
As Paul ind
On 3/23/14 12:58 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> That led me to discover that the "main" target doesn't build the
>> uilistener target. Should it?
>Ant main just compiles the core, fluint, cilistener and flexcoverlistener
>targets, the ui listener and air lister are created from the 'list
Hi,
> Anyway, I gave up and followed
> http://blog.yoz.sk/2012/01/quicktip-flexunit-and-ant/
You might want to read our own documentation first:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLEX/FlexUnit+Ant+Task
Justin
Hi,
> That led me to discover that the "main" target doesn't build the
> uilistener target. Should it?
Ant main just compiles the core, fluint, cilistener and flexcoverlistener
targets, the ui listener and air lister are created from the 'listeners'
target.
The CI listensers are for continuou
Still learning FlexUnit. I'm following this example:
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flex/articles/flashbuilder4_tdd.html.
This seemed to work but I'm pretty sure was using the FlexUnit libraries
that ship with FB.
Then I copied the files to flex-asjs and am trying to get it to run there
by pointing
On 3/22/14 5:46 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> I found that I can set my ANT_OPTS like this:
>> export ANT_OPTS='-Xms512m -Xmx512m -Djsse.enableSNIExtension=false'
>
>This also works:
>export ANT_OPTS="-Djsse.enableSNIExtension=false"
>
>Unless github fix their SSL not sure what else we c
Hi,
> I found that I can set my ANT_OPTS like this:
> export ANT_OPTS='-Xms512m -Xmx512m -Djsse.enableSNIExtension=false'
This also works:
export ANT_OPTS="-Djsse.enableSNIExtension=false"
Unless github fix their SSL not sure what else we can do.
Justin
I found that I can set my ANT_OPTS like this:
export ANT_OPTS='-Xms512m -Xmx512m -Djsse.enableSNIExtension=false'
and that seemed to allow it to work. That's kind of an ugly workaround
though.
-Alex
On 3/21/14 3:25 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> The build failed for me, apparently due
Hi,
> The build failed for me, apparently due to this issue:
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7615645/ssl-handshake-alert-unrecognized
> -name-error-since-upgrade-to-java-1-7-0
I'm currently getting same issue with exactly the same set up that I made the
RC with so looks like something chang
Hi Justin,
While I actually go and try to learn FlexUnit, can you finish up on the
installer issue about "Error: Inconsistant linkage"?
The FlexUnit package looks pretty good. Sigs match, Rat is clean. The
only I wondered was if Digital Primates should be in the NOTICE file.
This stuff wasn't a
Hi,
Anyone have a chance to look at RC2? Any comments?
Justin
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please place all of the discussion here and not in the [VOTE] thread.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
Hi,
Please place all of the discussion here and not in the [VOTE] thread.
Thanks,
Justin
66 matches
Mail list logo
