On 9/15/16, 7:09 PM, "Josh Tynjala" wrote:
>I don't have an answer to your question. However, considering that there
>is
>disagreement on who should have copyright, and the original license is one
>that we can use, I don't see a risk in keeping their header. We can use
>the
>code either way.
Sur
easier for Justin to go ahead and JFDI?
Thanks,
Om
Sent from my LG G3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-- Original message--
From: OmPrakash Muppirala
Date: Thu, Sep 15, 2016 5:41 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org<mailto:dev@flex.apache.org>;
Subject:Re: [DRAFT] Apache FlexJS 0.7.0
I don't have an answer to your question. However, considering that there is
disagreement on who should have copyright, and the original license is one
that we can use, I don't see a risk in keeping their header. We can use the
code either way.
- Josh
On Sep 15, 2016 4:40 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
e
>
> -- Original message--
> *From: *OmPrakash Muppirala
> *Date: *Thu, Sep 15, 2016 5:41 PM
> *To: *dev@flex.apache.org;
> *Subject:*Re: [DRAFT] Apache FlexJS 0.7.0 and Apache Flex FalconJX 0.7.0
> Released
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Justin Mclean
> wrote:
Hi,
> Some issues are more controversial than others. The controversial ones
> should be decided before committing changes.
So what issues do you consider not to be controversial? Which ones can I fix?
Thanks,
Justin
RAFT] Apache FlexJS 0.7.0 and Apache Flex FalconJX 0.7.0 Released
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Justin, any reason you did not fix the issues yourself? Were you
> expecting
> > someone else to fix them?
>
> If I had changed LICENSE
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Justin, any reason you did not fix the issues yourself? Were you
> expecting
> > someone else to fix them?
>
> If I had changed LICENSE/NOTICE without discussion it’s probable that my
> changes would be vetoed.
>
I doubt that wou
On 9/15/16, 4:31 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>> and often the message feels more like Justin is telling someone else to
>>do the work instead proposing "hey, I think we
>> should apply this patch to this file”.
>
>How much work is it (for instance) to add a header or add something to
>LICENSE?
Hi,
> Justin, any reason you did not fix the issues yourself? Were you expecting
> someone else to fix them?
If I had changed LICENSE/NOTICE without discussion it’s probable that my
changes would be vetoed.
> Also, why were no JIRA tickets filed?
For these exact issue no a sI had expected it
On 9/15/16, 4:17 PM, "Josh Tynjala" wrote:
>Wouldn't it be easier to leave the originally license header intact, even
>if it may not necessarily be required, than to try to convince another
>community to take ownership of the code?
Not sure. If we give them copyright and we shouldn't have, ca
Hi,
> This isn't true for many licensing issues. The answer
> isn't always clear
But there’s usually an option to make it just a documentation issue rather than
a possible licensed error. When in doubt that should be the path we take that
was it doesn’t hold up the release.
> and often the me
Justin, any reason you did not fix the issues yourself? Were you expecting
someone else to fix them?
Also, why were no JIRA tickets filed?
Thanks,
Om
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > During the release process, he brought up the fact that the full MIT
> license
Hi,
> During the release process, he brought up the fact that the full MIT license
> wording was not included,
I brought this up before before the release process was started [1]. The patch
header issue was first brought up last in the last release many months ago.
Thanks,
Justin
1.
https://
Wouldn't it be easier to leave the originally license header intact, even
if it may not necessarily be required, than to try to convince another
community to take ownership of the code?
- Josh
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
> On 9/15/16, 2:30 PM, "Christofer Dutz" wrote
Hi,
> Well, I can only speak for myself, but I have learned over the years that,
> while we can't say "Community over Policy" since policy is important,
> community is still more important than trying to nail every last detail of
> the licensing.
If we start making releases that don’t conform to
On 9/15/16, 2:30 PM, "Christofer Dutz" wrote:
>Hi Alex,
>
>
>as far as I understood it, It's not the patch file that we are talking
>about, its that the patch file (which should have an Apache license ... I
>think) changes an existing file with other license, hereby modifying it
>and creating a
rt on licensing.
Chris
Von: Alex Harui
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. September 2016 17:42:38
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: CreateJS Externs (was: [DRAFT] Apache FlexJS 0.7.0 and Apache Flex
FalconJX 0.7.0 Released)
On 9/15/16, 1:39 AM, "Christofer Dutz"
On 9/15/16, 10:13 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
wrote:
>
>I would leave it up to the Release Manager to make the call on a case by
>case basis, whether to hold the release or to punt it to the next release.
I agree that an RM can ignore the vote and cancel an RC, but
On Sep 15, 2016 8:31 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/15/16, 12:34 AM, "Christofer Dutz" wrote:
>
> >Just to add my 50ct to this discussion.
> >
> >
> >Justin did bring up the issue. He even brought it when we were first
> >discussing starting a release. The discussion sort of dried out witho
On 9/15/16, 1:39 AM, "Christofer Dutz" wrote:
>I still have one discussion in mind with the replacing of License Headers
>in files as part of the Patch process. I guess this isn't resolved yet. I
>responded more general as the other responses seemed to refer to someone
>continuously doing somet
On 9/15/16, 12:34 AM, "Christofer Dutz" wrote:
>Just to add my 50ct to this discussion.
>
>
>Justin did bring up the issue. He even brought it when we were first
>discussing starting a release. The discussion sort of dried out without a
>resolution, then when it came to the release, he mentione
Chris
Von: Harbs
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. September 2016 10:30:00
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [DRAFT] Apache FlexJS 0.7.0 and Apache Flex FalconJX 0.7.0 Released
I’m confused about which issue you are referring to.
Before the release was cut he brought up some issues related to code
I’m confused about which issue you are referring to.
Before the release was cut he brought up some issues related to code which
might have not have compatible licensing, We acted on that pretty much
immediately.
During the release process, he brought up the fact that the full MIT license
wordi
hink that way", let's involve legal and have these things settled
once and for all?
Chris
Von: Alex Harui
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. September 2016 06:15
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [DRAFT] Apache FlexJS 0.7.0 and Apache Flex FalconJX 0
I have published flexjs 0.7.0 on the npm repository.
You can install it by running:
npm install flexjs -g
Before publishing, I confirmed that the npm flexjs package does indeed
download from the mirrors:
==
*Downloading Apache FlexJS from mirror:
http://mirror.symnds.com/softwar
+1.
Let’s keep things positive and keep things rolling.
Like we’ve discussed in the past, let’s try not to read too much intent into
emails. Email is a bad medium for conveying intent. I didn’t read bad intent
from anyone here.
Thank you Alex for getting this release out, and thank you Justin
On 9/14/16, 4:27 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
>Perhaps the question we should be asking is why are other PMC members are
>not finding these issues earlier as well?
Well, I can only speak for myself, but I have learned over the years that,
while we can't say "Community over Policy" since policy
Hi,
> Justin, regardless of the perceived tone of Alex's message, the content of
> it should not be dismissed. You always seem to raise new licensing issues
> at the last minute before a release
Here the issues were raised well before the RC was made so not really last
minute. [1][2]
But it’s t
Justin, regardless of the perceived tone of Alex's message, the content of
it should not be dismissed. You always seem to raise new licensing issues
at the last minute before a release. This timing can be extremely
frustrating for the rest of us.
- Josh
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Justin Mcl
Hi,
> I don't think there is a problem. Let's push npm out so we can push out
> the announcement. If there is a problem it can be rectified.
I was suggesting that care be taken. You yourself stated that the npm release
contained code from the nightly. [1]
> This is another example of why the
Hi,
> If that's the case, I guess we'll need to switch to using "npm pack" for
> testing NPM builds in the future. It produces an archive that is the same
> as what gets downloaded when a version is published to NPM's servers, but
> you can use it to install locally.
That sounds like a good idea
On 9/13/16, 3:28 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
wrote:
>The npm flexjs package is a thing on its own which points to only released
>Apache artifacts. We are not publishing unreleased apache code anywhere.
>
>Still not sure what the violation is.
I don't think there i
The npm flexjs package is a thing on its own which points to only released
Apache artifacts. We are not publishing unreleased apache code anywhere.
Still not sure what the violation is.
Thanks,
Om
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Josh Tynjala wrote:
> If that's the case, I guess we'll need to
If that's the case, I guess we'll need to switch to using "npm pack" for
testing NPM builds in the future. It produces an archive that is the same
as what gets downloaded when a version is published to NPM's servers, but
you can use it to install locally.
Running the following command in the same
I read that thread and I don't see any obvious violation. Can you please
expand on what you think is a violation? How do you think we should fix
the said violation?
Thanks,
Om
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I have pushed the new bits as a pre-release to npm.
Hi,
> I have pushed the new bits as a pre-release to npm.
Just a word of caution here, by doing this you are probably not in line with
ASF policy. I could point you to the usual links about release etc but this
discussion on the incubator list is recent and relevant. [1]
Thanks,
Justin
1.
ht
Just tried flexjs@next on Mac. Looks good to me!
- Josh
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:55 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 4:44 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Josh Tynjala
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Om, can you give my latest cha
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 4:44 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Josh Tynjala
> wrote:
>
>> Om, can you give my latest changes a try? I tweaked the NPM scripts to
>> actually run inside Node, which should clear up the cross-platform issues,
>> like requiring Cyg
On 9/13/16, 2:03 AM, "Harbs" wrote:
>One thing I noticed is that JIRA has not been updated to the fact that
>there’s a 0.7.0 release.
Thanks for the reminder. I updated JIRA.
>
>On Sep 13, 2016, at 10:10 AM, Christofer Dutz
>wrote:
>
>> So what's the status on releasing? I would like to sta
t;
>
> Chris
>
>
> Von: omup...@gmail.com im Auftrag von OmPrakash Muppirala
>
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. September 2016 01:44:45
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: [DRAFT] Apache FlexJS 0.7.0 and Apache Flex FalconJX 0.7.0
> Released
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2
pache FlexJS 0.7.0 and Apache Flex FalconJX 0.7.0 Released
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Josh Tynjala wrote:
> Om, can you give my latest changes a try? I tweaked the NPM scripts to
> actually run inside Node, which should clear up the cross-platform issues,
> like requiring Cyg
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Josh Tynjala wrote:
> Om, can you give my latest changes a try? I tweaked the NPM scripts to
> actually run inside Node, which should clear up the cross-platform issues,
> like requiring Cygwin on Windows. Additionally, I made the NPM scripts
> launch the real scr
Om, can you give my latest changes a try? I tweaked the NPM scripts to
actually run inside Node, which should clear up the cross-platform issues,
like requiring Cygwin on Windows. Additionally, I made the NPM scripts
launch the real scripts, so any changes should be picked up automatically
from now
I hope to find a way to reuse the existing scripts in the next version. I
think that tweak I made recently to the NPM versions will help. When I
expose asnodec, I'll play around with some ideas.
- Josh
On Sep 10, 2016 10:05 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala"
wrote:
> On Sep 10, 2016 9:39 AM, "Josh Tynja
On 9/10/16, 10:04 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
wrote:
>Which swcs dont match? I can take a look.
If you do a binary compare between what node installs and what we posted
on the mirrors, none of the SWCs compare.
I just checked out Core.swc and found that the code i
On Sep 10, 2016 9:39 AM, "Josh Tynjala" wrote:
>
> Wait! There's one more thing with the NPM versions that need to be
changed.
> The last lines of asjscnpm, asjscompcnpm, and mxmlcnpm need to be updated
> to match the changes in the regular versions.
>
> For instance, in asjsc:
>
> -external-libra
Which swcs dont match? I can take a look.
On Sep 10, 2016 9:55 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>
>
> On 9/9/16, 10:52 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
> wrote:
>
> >On Sep 9, 2016 10:46 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
> >>
> >> The SWCs did not match. I think they should. Did you get
On 9/9/16, 10:52 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
wrote:
>On Sep 9, 2016 10:46 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>>
>> The SWCs did not match. I think they should. Did you get the SWCs from
>> the CI server or some other place?
>
>Hmm, I thought the swcs came with the binaries?
Wait! There's one more thing with the NPM versions that need to be changed.
The last lines of asjscnpm, asjscompcnpm, and mxmlcnpm need to be updated
to match the changes in the regular versions.
For instance, in asjsc:
-external-library-path="$SCRIPT_HOME/../libs/js.swc"
is replaced by
+config
After installing flexjs@next from NPM, I can now successfully run asjsc,
asjscompc, and mxmlc from the command line on Mac. The end-of-line fix
appears to be working correctly.
- Josh
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:08 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala
wrote:
> I just pushed flexjs 0.7.0 with a tag 'next'. If
On Sep 9, 2016 10:46 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>
> The SWCs did not match. I think they should. Did you get the SWCs from
> the CI server or some other place?
Hmm, I thought the swcs came with the binaries? If yes, it should be
loaded from some mirror.
Did you have an earlier npm flexjs version
The SWCs did not match. I think they should. Did you get the SWCs from
the CI server or some other place?
-Alex
On 9/9/16, 10:43 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
wrote:
>AFAIK the ant build related stuff would be different. Everything else
>should match. But, I’m no
AFAIK the ant build related stuff would be different. Everything else
should match. But, I’m not 100% sure.
Although in my tests, the included apps compiled fine using the npm
installed global tools, mxmlc and asjsc.
Thanks,
Om
On Sep 9, 2016 10:01 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>
>
> On 9/9/16, 7
On 9/9/16, 7:08 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
wrote:
>I just pushed flexjs 0.7.0 with a tag 'next'. If someone can test it on a
>Mac and give me an all clear, I can go ahead and promote the package to a
>release.
>
>Run:
>*npm install flexjs@next -g *
>to test flexjs
I just pushed flexjs 0.7.0 with a tag 'next'. If someone can test it on a
Mac and give me an all clear, I can go ahead and promote the package to a
release.
Run:
*npm install flexjs@next -g *
to test flexjs 0.7.0 npm package.
Thanks,
Om
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 2:31 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala
wrote
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> Please comment on the draft below. We need Om or someone to publish the
> npm module.
>
On it.
Thanks,
Om
>
> ---
>
> The Apache Flex community is pleased to announce the release of Apache
> FlexJS SDK 0.7.0 and Apache Flex FalconJX
Please comment on the draft below. We need Om or someone to publish the
npm module.
---
The Apache Flex community is pleased to announce the release of Apache
FlexJS SDK 0.7.0 and Apache Flex FalconJX Compiler 0.7.0.
Apache Flex is a highly productive, open source application framework
57 matches
Mail list logo
