t;
>
> Chris
>
>
> Von: Harbs
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. September 2016 09:21:36
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Release FlexJS/FalconJX 0.7.0
>
> I’m getting the following error when running the approval script.
Hi,
It assumes you are using gpg [1] to verify the signatures, you may not have it
installed?
Thanks,
Justin
aining the releases of the compiler-jburg-types and the
> compiler-build-tools
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflex-1017/
>
>
> 2) The repo containing all the rest.
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflex-10
Hi,
> Well I guess we are actually only voting on the Source Package that Alex is
> going to build using the Ant build. The artifacts here are our Maven binary
> build
We may need to vote on it, especially if it contains anything that’s not
contained in the source package being voted on. See l
Hi,
> Actually it's two repos:
> 1) The repo containing the releases of the compiler-jburg-types and the
> compiler-build-tools
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflex-1017/
So unless I’m missing something (quite possibly), we would need to have a vote
in order to
Hi,
> One thing I'm not totally sure about is, if we are going to release all
> framework modules of asjs. Currently there is a Fonts module included.
What’s in this? Do you have a link to what will be votes on to be released?
Justin
Chris,
Should I just cut the RCs or do you want to create the Maven artifacts and
tag first?
-Alex
On 9/3/16, 9:00 AM, "Josh Tynjala" wrote:
>Correct. As I said, +1.
>
>- Josh
>
>On Sep 3, 2016 7:45 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>
>> BTW, Josh, does this mean you got through one or both scripts an
Correct. As I said, +1.
- Josh
On Sep 3, 2016 7:45 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
> BTW, Josh, does this mean you got through one or both scripts and didn't
> see any issues?
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> On 9/2/16, 9:25 AM, "Josh Tynjala" wrote:
>
> >FYI, to complete the ApproveFlexJS.xml script successfu
BTW, Josh, does this mean you got through one or both scripts and didn't
see any issues?
Thanks,
-Alex
On 9/2/16, 9:25 AM, "Josh Tynjala" wrote:
>FYI, to complete the ApproveFlexJS.xml script successfully, I had to tell
>it to download Flex SDK 4.15.0 instead of 4.14.1. When the script used
>4.
On 9/2/16, 9:25 AM, "Josh Tynjala" wrote:
>FYI, to complete the ApproveFlexJS.xml script successfully, I had to tell
>it to download Flex SDK 4.15.0 instead of 4.14.1. When the script used
>4.14.1, it tried to download SWFObject from Google Code and failed because
>the link is obsolete. 4.15.0
FYI, to complete the ApproveFlexJS.xml script successfully, I had to tell
it to download Flex SDK 4.15.0 instead of 4.14.1. When the script used
4.14.1, it tried to download SWFObject from Google Code and failed because
the link is obsolete. 4.15.0 downloads SWFObject from Github instead.
Oddly, I
On 9/2/16, 8:31 AM, "Josh Tynjala" wrote:
>I thought I had given my thumbs up already, so I assumed you were talking
>about other PMC members. +1.
I saw your earlier email, but it wasn't clear you had actually examined
the source artifacts the way we are "supposed to" before voting.
See the s
I thought I had given my thumbs up already, so I assumed you were talking
about other PMC members. +1.
- Josh
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> We still need PMC members who plan to vote on this release to examine the
> CI release branch artifacts and give a thumbs up. So far,
13 matches
Mail list logo
