On 1/23/13 10:40 AM, "Carol Frampton" wrote:
>> Sure, Flex 4 is one tine of the fork, the other is Flex 3. But we already
>> donated the Flex 4 'tine', and trunk at Adobe had Flex 4 stuff, so I am
>> calling the 3.x branch the 'fork'. If you look, there haven't been that
>> many checkins to
On 1/23/13 1 :28PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>
>
>
>On 1/23/13 10:12 AM, "Carol Frampton" wrote:
>> Personally I think it is a much better use of Alex's time to
>>continue
>> to work on the the JS stuff
> Which is why I asked if there was a way the community could help.
T
On 1/23/13 10:12 AM, "Carol Frampton" wrote:
> Personally I think it is a much better use of Alex's time to continue
> to work on the the JS stuff
Which is why I asked if there was a way the community could help.
>>>
>>> The answer is no. Unfortunately the community can't help.
On 1/23/13 12 :18PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>
>
>
>On 1/23/13 6:40 AM, "Carol Frampton" wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 1/22/13 5 :56PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
Personally I think it is a much better use of Alex's time to continue
to work on the the JS stuff
>>> Which is why I a
On 1/23/13 6:40 AM, "Carol Frampton" wrote:
>
>
> On 1/22/13 5 :56PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> Personally I think it is a much better use of Alex's time to continue
>>> to work on the the JS stuff
>> Which is why I asked if there was a way the community could help.
>
> The
On 1/22/13 5 :56PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Personally I think it is a much better use of Alex's time to continue
>>to work on the the JS stuff
>Which is why I asked if there was a way the community could help.
The answer is no. Unfortunately the community can't help. The majority
o
uesday, January 22, 2013 11:56 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: Adobe BlazeDS and 3.X SDK branch donation
Hi,
Personally I think it is a much better use of Alex's time to continue to
work on the the JS stuff
Which is why I asked if there was a way the community could help.
Even if
Hi,
> Personally I think it is a much better use of Alex's time to continue to work
> on the the JS stuff
Which is why I asked if there was a way the community could help.
> Even if it got to Apache it would mean that it would have to be periodically
> released
Which I would hope users interest
Although i'm not a committer and it's not the apache way to tell someone what
to do
i understand that in this case Alex would like to have feedback from the
community.
So here we go :-)
I really think a few very bright people are working on the js cross compiling
stuff / Flex next.
This is in
I agree with Carol on all points. It would be a loss of time
Fréderic Cox
On 22/01/13 15:48, "Carol Frampton" wrote:
>
>
>On 1/21/13 6 :09PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>> BlazeDS is being donated by a different team and I checked earlier in
>>> January and they said they have to cl
On 1/21/13 6 :09PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> BlazeDS is being donated by a different team and I checked earlier in
>> January and they said they have to clear up a legal issue. I don't
>>have any
>> details and haven't pressed them for it.
>Mind asking what the legal issue is?
>
>> 3.x
I tend to agree with Alex here.
I have some Flex 3 projects, and I seriously doubt I will migrate them to
Apache even if there was an option.
Working towards the future is way more important than living in the past. If
there's something that doesn't work in Flex 3, I'd either subclass something
On 1/21/13 10:32 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> 3) Need a bug fixed in 3.x SDK that cannot be practically resolved via
>> workaround or monkey-patch.
>>
>> Until now at work, they've been able to survive with that.
>
> And you can run Adobe Flex 4.x like this as well (and I know proj
Hi,
> 3) Need a bug fixed in 3.x SDK that cannot be practically resolved via
> workaround or monkey-patch.
>
> Until now at work, they've been able to survive with that.
And you can run Adobe Flex 4.x like this as well (and I know project that do).
Issue here is that the monkey patches remain i
org
Subject: Re: Adobe BlazeDS and 3.X SDK branch donation
On 1/21/13 9:35 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
Hi,
Maybe with google trends
http://www.google.fr/trends/explore#q=flex%203%2C%20flex%204%2C%20as3&cmpt=q
It shows interest in flex 3 at around 90% of that of flex 4 each mont
On 1/21/13 9:48 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
> Hi.
>
>> Apache has a policy of not taking open source code, even if compatibly
>> licensed, without consent of the copyright owner.
> It's not exactly without consent Adobe have publicly stated several times that
> the 3.X branch was part of the d
On 1/21/13 9:35 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Maybe with google trends
>> http://www.google.fr/trends/explore#q=flex%203%2C%20flex%204%2C%20as3&cmpt=q
>
> It shows interest in flex 3 at around 90% of that of flex 4 each month over
> the last 12 months. You get slightly different resu
Hi.
> Apache has a policy of not taking open source code, even if compatibly
> licensed, without consent of the copyright owner.
It's not exactly without consent Adobe have publicly stated several times that
the 3.X branch was part of the donation. Many people were surprised that it
didn't come
Hi,
> Maybe with google trends
> http://www.google.fr/trends/explore#q=flex%203%2C%20flex%204%2C%20as3&cmpt=q
It shows interest in flex 3 at around 90% of that of flex 4 each month over the
last 12 months. You get slightly different results if you use "flex 3" and
"flex 4" so I'd say it's only
On 1/21/13 9:17 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Potentially. When I get back to dealing with the 3.x donation, one strategy
>> is to only donate the few compiler changes
> Lost me there what compiler changes would be in the 3.x branch have that 4.X
> doesn't have?
After we started 4.x
Maybe with google trends
http://www.google.fr/trends/explore#q=flex%203%2C%20flex%204%2C%20as3&cmpt=q
-Message d'origine-
From: Alex Harui
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 6:12 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: Adobe BlazeDS and 3.X SDK branch donation
On 1/21/1
Hi,
> Potentially. When I get back to dealing with the 3.x donation, one strategy
> is to only donate the few compiler changes
Lost me there what compiler changes would be in the 3.x branch have that 4.X
doesn't have? Could we use the 4.X compiler to compile the 3.X SDK?
> In theory, but this n
On 1/21/13 9:05 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
> HI,
>
>> Yup, and so I will see how much interest this thread generates and use that
>> to adjust my priorities.
>
> Users of the SDK may not be subscribed to developer list (or even the user
> list) so not really a way to gauge real world interes
HI,
> Yup, and so I will see how much interest this thread generates and use that
> to adjust my priorities.
Users of the SDK may not be subscribed to developer list (or even the user
list) so not really a way to gauge real world interest or need IMO.
Justin
On 1/21/13 6:40 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Yes. Did you think Carol and Peter and I had time to spare with the other
>> set of donations, releases and graduation?
>
>
> Perhaps / perhaps not it has been a year I don't actually know. I asked
> because I have no visibility to how
On 1/21/13 6:56 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There was a fair bit of interest in it being donated a while back:
> http://markmail.org/message/idrmyz72q7xibgd3
>
> And even though a year has passed I know there are still Enterprise customers
> using 3.x.
Yup, and so I will see how mu
Hi,
There was a fair bit of interest in it being donated a while back:
http://markmail.org/message/idrmyz72q7xibgd3
And even though a year has passed I know there are still Enterprise customers
using 3.x.
And last time it was brought up you thought it would be next after FalconJS.
http://markm
Hi,
> Yes. Did you think Carol and Peter and I had time to spare with the other
> set of donations, releases and graduation?
Perhaps / perhaps not it has been a year I don't actually know. I asked because
I have no visibility to how much work has been done on it nor do I know how
much work i
On 1/21/13 4:55 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> IMO, one bug in a year isn't enough to bump its priority.
> Agree but quite often things happen after stuff is donated not before. It was
> one of the then Adobe said they would donate it t's been a year. Given that
> amount of time has p
Hi,
> IMO, one bug in a year isn't enough to bump its priority.
Agree but quite often things happen after stuff is donated not before. It was
one of the then Adobe said they would donate it t's been a year. Given that
amount of time has passed there probably is less demand for it but only becau
On 1/21/13 3:09 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> BlazeDS is being donated by a different team and I checked earlier in
>> January and they said they have to clear up a legal issue. I don't have any
>> details and haven't pressed them for it.
> Mind asking what the legal issue is?
OK, I
Hi,
> BlazeDS is being donated by a different team and I checked earlier in
> January and they said they have to clear up a legal issue. I don't have any
> details and haven't pressed them for it.
Mind asking what the legal issue is?
> 3.x could be a lot of work and nobody has asked for it recen
On 1/21/13 2:51 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone know if any progress has been made with the donation of these? Is
> there still anything else that Adobe was going to donate that's not showed up
> yet?
I think these are the last two on the 'promise' list. Squiggly will
probab
Hi,
Does anyone know if any progress has been made with the donation of these? Is
there still anything else that Adobe was going to donate that's not showed up
yet?
Thanks,
Justin
34 matches
Mail list logo
