It points to the nightly build. Here it is, but my email client is going
to insert line-breaks.
http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-utilities_tour-de-flex-re
lease/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/src/index.html
On 11/21/14, 11:18 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi
Hi,
> [1] http://s.apache.org/sC4
That URL not working for me, but as I'm behind some firewall/proxy I can't work
out the correct one. Someone mind posting it.
Thanks,
Justin
I pushed these changes. You can check them out in a few hours at [1].
Yes, it can take up to two hours to complete the build.
-Alex
[1] http://s.apache.org/sC4
On 11/21/14, 2:21 PM, "Flexicious.com" wrote:
>Allrighty then,
>
>flexicious.com/classic.jpg
>flexicious.com/ultimate.jpg
>flexiciou
Allrighty then,
flexicious.com/classic.jpg
flexicious.com/ultimate.jpg
flexicious.com/dashboard.jpg
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:59 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala
wrote:
> Did not show up this time as well. Best would be to upload the images to
> your server and give us the urls. We will link to those
Did not show up this time as well. Best would be to upload the images to
your server and give us the urls. We will link to those image urls
directly from the TDF app.
Thanks,
Om
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Flexicious.com
wrote:
> Sorry about that - images attached.
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 20
Sorry about that - images attached.
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> This list doesn't take inline or attached binaries, I'm afraid.
>
> EdB
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Flexicious.com
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks All, we have the images. I asked my graphics guy to m
This list doesn't take inline or attached binaries, I'm afraid.
EdB
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Flexicious.com
wrote:
> Thanks All, we have the images. I asked my graphics guy to make it look
> like ardisia so it looks consistent. I hope thats ok, Let me know if it
> looks too similar an
Thanks All, we have the images. I asked my graphics guy to make it look
like ardisia so it looks consistent. I hope thats ok, Let me know if it
looks too similar and I will have him get more creative with it :-)
[image: Inline image 1]
[image: Inline image 2]
[image: Inline image 3]
On Mon, Nov
On Nov 18, 2014 2:57 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Just waiting for the images and see if we need another RC or not.
>
We agreed that there is no need for a new RC. But it is up to you.
Thanks,
Om
> Thanks,
> Justin
Hi,
Just waiting for the images and see if we need another RC or not.
Thanks,
Justin
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> On 11/17/14, 3:02 AM, "Flexicious.com" wrote:
>
> >
> >Sorry team for being late to the topic, but having read through the
> >thread,
> >am I correct in assuming that we need to provide a 600X400 image for our
> >products?
>
> Hi,
>
> Om wro
On 11/17/14, 3:02 AM, "Flexicious.com" wrote:
>
>Sorry team for being late to the topic, but having read through the
>thread,
>am I correct in assuming that we need to provide a 600X400 image for our
>products?
Hi,
Om wrote the code so he’d know for sure, but I think it just has to be
“high-r
Sorry team for being late to the topic, but having read through the thread,
am I correct in assuming that we need to provide a 600X400 image for our
products?
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 2:27 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala
wrote:
> >
> > 1) get your thoughts on taking Flexicious out of 3rdparty.xml so t
Hi,
Anyone else have anything to add before I make another RC?
Justin
>
> 1) get your thoughts on taking Flexicious out of 3rdparty.xml so that
> their app doesn’t show up scaled? When they reply with a bitmap to use
> like Ardisia did, then we’ll add it to the flex.a.o version which is what
> most folks use anyway.
>
+1 for removing Flexicious out of 3rdparty.xml.
HI,
Just a note if you are compiling from source using Java 1.8 speeds up compile
time, from 30 minutes to under 20 minutes on my machine.
Thanks,
Justin
On 11/10/14, 10:03 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> The loaded app appears to be somewhat resizable. If you load the SWF
>> directly [3] without wrapper you can resize it and the text retains its
>> font size. Try resizing the TDF window. For me, the text in the
>> Flexicious app scales,
Hi,
> The loaded app appears to be somewhat resizable. If you load the SWF
> directly [3] without wrapper you can resize it and the text retains its
> font size. Try resizing the TDF window. For me, the text in the
> Flexicious app scales, indicating that it is loaded into a sandbox and
> there
On 11/10/14, 2:46 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Please post a link to a screenshot of a properly sized and positioned
>> third party content
>
>Here you go:
>https://drive.google.com/a/classsoftware.com/file/d/0B3cTQYHN73CEaFpROE45d
>01rYmM/view
If you look carefully at the screenshot,
>
> > I ran the approval script.
>
> Which by itself isn't enough to approve a release see [1][2] etc
If he had relied only on the approval script, we would not have had this
big thread discussing blocker issues. Or the issues that you call 'bike
shedding' :-)
Thanks,
Om
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
Hi,
> Please post a link to a screenshot of a properly sized and positioned
> third party content
Here you go:
https://drive.google.com/a/classsoftware.com/file/d/0B3cTQYHN73CEaFpROE45d01rYmM/view
> I ran the approval script.
Which by itself isn't enough to approve a release see [1][2] etc
Tha
On 11/10/14, 1:41 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Looks like the issue was case-mismatch in the Ant script. The Squiggly
>> examples now work on the CI server.
>
>Looks like the case change you suggested for one of the Squiggly RCs
>broke this. Very odd that it compiles but is unable to f
Hi,
> Looks like the issue was case-mismatch in the Ant script. The Squiggly
> examples now work on the CI server.
Looks like the case change you suggested for one of the Squiggly RCs broke
this. Very odd that it compiles but is unable to find the code at runtime
that's probably a bug in the c
On 11/7/14, 7:10 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
>> because that’s how it will behave when published to flex.a.o.
>
>It may not. It may be a browser issue? It may be due to configuration of
>web server/CI windows box? For instance I'd guess that the build by the
>CI is not the same as the release c
On 08/11/14 02:48, OmPrakash Muppirala wrote:
I've checked in the changes into the apache-tour-de-flex-1.2 branch. Can
someone take a look at the changes?
Seems to work well looking at
http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-utilities_tour-de-flex-release/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact
On 11/8/14, 12:16 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>I still think the Squiggly issue needs further investigation,
Somehow, the issue was related to case-sensitive capitalization of the
Squiggly SWCs. Why that makes a difference on Windows, I’m not sure. So
now the verify error is gone, but has been
On 11/7/14, 7:14 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
>> The new version is (should be) available here. You will need to clear
>>your
>> browser cache first:
>>
>>http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-utilities_tour-de-flex-
>>release/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/sr
Hi,
Given we're now embedding an image from another site are there security
concerns around that?
I think the disclaimer on the same page covers any legal issues. Anyone think
otherwise?
Thanks,
Justin
Hi,
> I've checked in the changes into the apache-tour-de-flex-1.2 branch. Can
> someone take a look at the changes?
From a quick glance the changes look OK to me.
> The new version is (should be) available here. You will need to clear your
> browser cache first:
> http://apacheflexbuild.cloud
Hi,
> Sometimes, releases get stuck on hard issues discovered late in the game.
> It is clear you want to ship as-is, but I think we should make the
> third-party content look good.
I'd like to remind people that releases cannot be vetoed and votes on releases
are by majority approval (ie 3+1 vo
I've checked in the changes into the apache-tour-de-flex-1.2 branch. Can
someone take a look at the changes?
I have kicked off a build here:
http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-utilities_tour-de-flex-release/10/console
The new version is (should be) available here. You will need t
Hi,
> I tried building the TourDeFlex with the
> nightly build from earlier in the thread but I was hit with 100 or so
> compile errors with path errors and pointers to non-existent components
> like a Spark RichTextEditor
Just in case anyone runs into this issue you need the latest released ver
How's this?
link: http://www.ardisialabs.com/tourDeFlex/tour-de-flex.jpg
Image is also attached.
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 3:43 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala
wrote:
> Thanks Jake. I linked to the image url you and tested the app. It looks
> too tiny. It is a 400x400 image. We probably need a 800x8
Thanks Jake. I linked to the image url you and tested the app. It looks
too tiny. It is a 400x400 image. We probably need a 800x800 for it to
look nice and readable. Also, a line of text in the image would probably
work.
Thanks,
Om
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Jake Knerr wrote:
> Hi OmP
(CC-ing Flexicious and Jake@Ardisia)
I have a fix ready to be checked in that uses an image and a click event to
take the user to a third party demo page. From my FB debug console, I
don't see any securitydomain exceptions when I do this. Whereas, with
loading a swf, I get a securitydomain error
Hi,
I am one of the third-parties, the "Ardisia Component Library". Sorry
about not responding earlier, I just read the thread.
I am thrilled to be included in the Tour De Flex, so first off thanks for
including this new feature. I tried building the TourDeFlex with the
nightly build from earlie
Hi,
I am one of the third-parties, the "Ardisia Component Library". Sorry
about not responding earlier, I just read the thread.
I am thrilled to be included in the Tour De Flex, so first off thanks for
including this new feature. I tried building the TourDeFlex with the
nightly build from earlie
On 11/7/14, 12:34 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>So how do we reach consensus on this in a timely way? If the process
>doesn't allow a vote and/or people don't vote it's basically dead in the
>water. I would like to see this released sooner than later and not have
>releases hanging for weeks, not
>
> As the release manager I think it is a minor issue but let's hear from
>> other people.
>>
> Me too, but others feel stronger. Surely we can just replace with a link
> to the web site for now easily enough ?
>
> There's no rush to get this out right now as far as I can tell, so if no
> one gets
On 07/11/14 08:34, Justin Mclean wrote:
As the release manager I think it is a minor issue but let's hear from other
people.
Me too, but others feel stronger. Surely we can just replace with a link
to the web site for now easily enough ?
There's no rush to get this out right now as far as I c
Hi,
> I think removing 3rdparty.xml and updating the RELEASE_NOTES would be
> sufficient.
But then the release notes would not reflect what has actually been added in
the source release which is what they need to represent. OR are you suggesting
we have different release notes for the binary an
-
From: Erik de Bruin [mailto:e...@ixsoftware.nl]
Sent: November-07-14 12:05 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0
How about: "ask the third parties?"
They must have an opinion on the "blocking" status of this issue ...
EdB
> Plus, we
How about: "ask the third parties?"
They must have an opinion on the "blocking" status of this issue ...
EdB
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
> On 11/6/14, 4:06 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >> Seems like if we drop 3rd-party support, we should remove 3rdpar
On 11/6/14, 4:06 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Seems like if we drop 3rd-party support, we should remove 3rdparty.xml
>> from the source package and update the RELEASE_NOTES.
>
>-1 to that we would have to revert about a dozen fixes (via cherry
>picking) to remove 3rd party example suppo
>
> Currently we have PMC members who are effectively blocking the release or
> a vote on it but are unwilling to help out in fixing with they see as
> issues.
Please read the "Implications of Voting" section in [1] I am quoting what
I think is the significant portion in that paragraph.
"a vote
Hi,
> Seems like if we drop 3rd-party support, we should remove 3rdparty.xml
> from the source package and update the RELEASE_NOTES.
-1 to that we would have to revert about a dozen fixes (via cherry picking) to
remove 3rd party example support for Tour De Flex.
> To say in the RELEASE_NOTES t
On 11/6/14, 1:46 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>So far we had a couple of PMC members who consider the 3rd Party issue to
>be blocking (but no indication they will provide a patch) and a couple
>who don't think it is blocking. Normally may be enough for a vote to pass
>but with the "no RC"
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Or a third option: how about we just have a short description and a link
> to
> > the third party component? We can add the embedded part in the next
> > release.
>
> Thats basically what we have now - the difference being it's hos
Hi,
> Or a third option: how about we just have a short description and a link to
> the third party component? We can add the embedded part in the next
> release.
Thats basically what we have now - the difference being it's hosted at the 3rd
party site.
One of the 3rd parties did provide their
Sorry, I will not be able to provide a patch. I have limited bandwidth
this week. I want to finish up the iOS7 skins first before working on
anything else.
+1 for dropping third party support in this release because of this issue.
Or a third option: how about we just have a short description an
Hi,
So far we had a couple of PMC members who consider the 3rd Party issue to be
blocking (but no indication they will provide a patch) and a couple who don't
think it is blocking. Normally may be enough for a vote to pass but with the
"no RC" process that's unclear.
Looks like we have a choi
On 11/6/14, 12:51 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> If trustContent=false, the SWFLoader doesn’t know it loaded another Flex
>> SWF. There is code in SWFLoader that tries to size loaded Flex SWFs
>> differently than other SWFs.
>
>From what I can see (but not 100% sure) it's loadForCompatib
On 11/6/14, 1:04 AM, "Harbs" wrote:
>Did you try this?
>http://blog.techhit.com/551102-how-to-prevent-outlook-2010-and-2013-from-a
>dding-line-breaks-to-sent-plain-text-messages
Seems to be for Windows. I’m on Mac and already have that option set. I
spent 20 minutes searching the internet.
-
>From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com]
>Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 10:36 AM
>To: dev@flex.apache.org
>Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0
>
>
>
>On 11/5/14, 12:49 PM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>
>>I don't see how this would be a
Did you try this?
http://blog.techhit.com/551102-how-to-prevent-outlook-2010-and-2013-from-adding-line-breaks-to-sent-plain-text-messages
On Nov 6, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>> PS Any chance you can format your email so that the URL don't break over
>> lines and thus result in 404s?
>
0:36 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0
On 11/5/14, 12:49 PM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>I don't see how this would be a blocker. The functionality is all
>there, the display is just a bit off on a few examples and that
>probably only
Hi,
> If trustContent=false, the SWFLoader doesn’t know it loaded another Flex
> SWF. There is code in SWFLoader that tries to size loaded Flex SWFs
> differently than other SWFs.
From what I can see (but not 100% sure) it's loadForCompatibility not
trustContent. Setting loadForCompatibility to
Hi,
> Any URL I type is not a link at the point I hit send, it is just plain text.
>
And most email clients treat anything starting with "http://"; as a link, which
breaks as some of your links are broken over two lines.
Simple fix is to not break the text over multiple lines.
> I may have
On 11/6/14, 12:08 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> The Marshall Plan [3] was the nickname for multi-version support in Flex
>> [4][5] that also solved communicating between sandboxed applications.
>
>Tour De Flex has no need for communication between it and any 3rd party
>app it loads so th
Going to try to consolidate this thread a bit.
On 11/5/14, 11:53 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> The Ardisia example sizing problem feels like a SecurityDomain issue.
>> After you force a resize with the divided box, the app scales down to
>>fit
>> instead of resizing. Third-party content
Hi,
> The Marshall Plan [3] was the nickname for multi-version support in Flex
> [4][5] that also solved communicating between sandboxed applications.
Tour De Flex has no need for communication between it and any 3rd party app it
loads so that's not a requirement here.
From looking at the SWFLo
On 11/5/14, 11:22 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> First step is to contact the third-parties and find out how they want to
>> get loaded (import or sandboxed with Marshall Plan).
>
>It would be useful if you included links to these techniques (to save
>people time) as not everyone may know
Hi,
> The Ardisia example sizing problem feels like a SecurityDomain issue.
> After you force a resize with the divided box, the app scales down to fit
> instead of resizing. Third-party content may not size correctly unless
> “import loaded” which I don’t think is the default.
Tour De Flex use
Hi,
> First step is to contact the third-parties and find out how they want to
> get loaded (import or sandboxed with Marshall Plan).
It would be useful if you included links to these techniques (to save people
time) as not everyone may know what is required here.
Thanks,
Justin
Hi,
> If import loaded, they need to add us to their crossdomain.xml, probably
> both flex.a.o and
> apacheflexbuilds.cloudapp.net:8080.
There's already a wildcard cross domain file for Flexicious [1] (but it may be
malformed), but looks like Ardisia doesn't have one. [2].
> And if import loa
On 11/5/14, 9:54 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> I think this is a blocker as well.
>>
>> +1 for trying to get this fixed before we ship this version.
>
>Patches/fixes are welcome as I have no idea how to fix it.
First step is to contact the third-parties and find out how they want to
ge
On 11/5/14, 9:56 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Actually, as I was checking in the changes to the Approval script, I
>> remembered that there was one glitch in the source package: there is a
>> swfobject.js in the source package. IMO, it either needs to be removed
>>or
>> mentioned in LI
Hi,
> Actually, as I was checking in the changes to the Approval script, I
> remembered that there was one glitch in the source package: there is a
> swfobject.js in the source package. IMO, it either needs to be removed or
> mentioned in LICENSE, and that is a potential blocker.
it is mentioned
Hi,
> I think this is a blocker as well.
>
> +1 for trying to get this fixed before we ship this version.
Patches/fixes are welcome as I have no idea how to fix it.
Thanks,
Justin
On 11/5/14, 9:06 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>Meanwhile, I got the source package from the builds server and tweaked the
>approval script to allow it to work without PGP signatures and everything
>looks fine to me, so I’m good to go otherwise.
Actually, as I was checking in the changes to the App
On Nov 5, 2014 9:07 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/5/14, 12:49 PM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>
> >I don't see how this would be a blocker. The functionality is all there,
> >the display is just a bit off on a few examples and
> >that probably only shows on specific instances. If I were RM, I'
On 11/5/14, 12:49 PM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>I don't see how this would be a blocker. The functionality is all there,
>the display is just a bit off on a few examples and
>that probably only shows on specific instances. If I were RM, I'd label
>this 'minor', file a JIRA and move on with the re
On 11/5/14, 1:32 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I'll also point out that what is currently being looked at it identical
>to RC0 that I called a vote on a week ago, so there would be no need to
>cancel that vote and call another one.
I think the MD5s probably changed. SWFs built at differe
Hi,
I'll also point out that what is currently being looked at it identical to RC0
that I called a vote on a week ago, so there would be no need to cancel that
vote and call another one.
There's only been one change made to the release branch which was an addition
of a MD5 check by Alex and IM
Hi,
> If the people who said they were looking at something have reported back,
> if all promised fixes have been committed and if all tweaks to the docs
> have been made - in other words, when the release branch has stabilised
> the RM decides when to call the vote.
IMO That is currently the ca
I don't see how this would be a blocker. The functionality is all there,
the display is just a bit off on a few examples and
that probably only shows on specific instances. If I were RM, I'd label
this 'minor', file a JIRA and move on with the release.
EdB
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Justin
>
> OK we currently have two (minor) issues which I'm unable to produce
> locally. And I have no idea if any PMC members have checked the important
> things like hashes and the like. How do we progress from here? How does the
> RM decide when it's time call a vote? So far this process has taken lon
HI,
So do if consider this release blockers or are they minor or perhaps occurring
due to the environment they been placed in? Can anyone suggest any reason to
why these may be occurring and/or provide patches?
(No exception is being thrown btw.)
Thanks,
Justin
Hi,
OK we currently have two (minor) issues which I'm unable to produce locally.
And I have no idea if any PMC members have checked the important things like
hashes and the like. How do we progress from here? How does the RM decide when
it's time call a vote? So far this process has taken longe
On 04/11/14 19:00, Erik de Bruin wrote:
I noticed, but when you resize the top right window by dragging the divider
between the top and bottom panes, a resize happens and all seems well. Can
you confirm?
Ack, on
http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-utilities_tour-de-flex-release/la
I noticed, but when you resize the top right window by dragging the divider
between the top and bottom panes, a resize happens and all seems well. Can
you confirm?
EdB
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 7:46 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala
wrote:
> Thanks Erik, this makes testing so much easier.
>
> The thirdpar
Thanks Erik, this makes testing so much easier.
The thirdparty comonents page does not look right. Here are a couple of
screenshots:
http://snag.gy/HpfYm.jpg
http://snag.gy/j48KB.jpg
Thanks,
Om
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> The nightly source builds can be found here
The nightly source builds can be found here:
http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-utilities_tour-de-flex-release/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/out/
The nightly 'binary' build can be viewed here:
http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-utilities_tour-d
+1 to this.
-Original Message-
I like this idea to have a special nightly build for releases during the
release process. It seems to me that it should simplify the process all
around.
Harbs
The nightly source builds can be found here:
http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-utilities_tour-de-flex-release/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/out/
The nightly 'binary' build can be viewed here (for the time being, until I
figure out a way to archive that proper
Never mind: it doesn't ;-)
Thanks,
EdB
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> By the way: does the 'package' target also run 'compile'? Don't want run
> everything twice for each run ...
>
> EdB
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Erik de Bruin wrote:
>
>> Looks like t
By the way: does the 'package' target also run 'compile'? Don't want run
everything twice for each run ...
EdB
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> Looks like the build machine doesn't have that problem, however, the build
> seems to be progressing nicely on there.
>
> EdB
Looks like the build machine doesn't have that problem, however, the build
seems to be progressing nicely on there.
EdB
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> FLEX_HOME points to the 'develop' branch of 'flex-sdk'.
>
> I did no local properties or anything, just ran 'ant clea
FLEX_HOME points to the 'develop' branch of 'flex-sdk'.
I did no local properties or anything, just ran 'ant clean compile package'
on 'TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3' as per the README.
EdB
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > While trying out the settings for the CI jo
Hi,
> While trying out the settings for the CI job, my local build (ant clean
> compile package) keeps failing with this message:
>
>[mxmlc]
> /Users/erik/Documents/ApacheFlex/git/flex-utilities/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/src/spark/controls/VideoDisplayExample.mxml(31):
> Error: Definition org.os
While trying out the settings for the CI job, my local build (ant clean
compile package) keeps failing with this message:
[mxmlc]
/Users/erik/Documents/ApacheFlex/git/flex-utilities/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/src/spark/controls/VideoDisplayExample.mxml(31):
Error: Definition org.osmf.utils:OSMFSe
Waiting on for the 'flex-sdk' job to finish so I can try the new TDF
release build.
EdB
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > That is not at all what I wrote. Please read emails more carefully
>
> I did read it carefully you said "It takes very little effort for the
Hi,
> That is not at all what I wrote. Please read emails more carefully
I did read it carefully you said "It takes very little effort for the release
manager to set up a copy of the build of the develop branch".
Given it takes very little effort and you now say that it's not the release
mana
>
> > That was very selective quoting ... I clearly state "the latest HEAD from
> > the release branch."
>
> So we would need to either alter existing CI jobs and add additional ones
> every time a release branch is made?
>
That is not at all what I wrote. Please read emails more carefully ... I
r
Hi,
> That was very selective quoting ... I clearly state "the latest HEAD from
> the release branch."
So we would need to either alter existing CI jobs and add additional ones every
time a release branch is made?
> It takes very little effort for the release manager to set up a copy of the
> b
I like this idea to have a special nightly build for releases during the
release process. It seems to me that it should simplify the process all around.
Harbs
On Nov 4, 2014, at 9:38 AM, Erik de Bruin wrote:
>>
>>> I'd go (and will go) one further, and use nightlies during this phase.
>>
>>
>
> > I'd go (and will go) one further, and use nightlies during this phase.
>
> How would that be possible given nightly are off the develop branch not a
> release branch. Other people may check stuff into develop that we don't
> want in the release under consideration. Also currently there are no
Hi,
> I'd go (and will go) one further, and use nightlies during this phase.
How would that be possible given nightly are off the develop branch not a
release branch. Other people may check stuff into develop that we don't want in
the release under consideration. Also currently there are no nig
On 11/3/14, 11:24 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>>> For TDF, because it is an “app”, if you want more feedback, it might be
>>> reasonable to post a deployed version of TDF somewhere like your
>>>personal
>>> folder
>
>It will take an hour or so to upload a tar of the files via scp to
>peop
Hi,
>> For TDF, because it is an “app”, if you want more feedback, it might be
>> reasonable to post a deployed version of TDF somewhere like your personal
>> folder
It will take an hour or so to upload a tar of the files via scp to
people.apache.org. Part of the reason we don't have a binary r
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
