On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:54 AM, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> From Alex in another thread:
>
> "1) whether I broke IOS and Android versions of SpinnerList/DateSpinner."
>
> The Mustella tests seem to indicate all is well. There may be issues
> that will only be visible in the wild, but we won't know u
>From Alex in another thread:
"1) whether I broke IOS and Android versions of SpinnerList/DateSpinner."
The Mustella tests seem to indicate all is well. There may be issues
that will only be visible in the wild, but we won't know unless we put
the release in the wild. As far as I'm concerned this
Hi,
> I thought that was what we agreed upon. Should we take out FontAwesome as
> well?
I can't see any reason why we need a user to accept the license if we including
it in binary form. We only need to prompt for the source in my understanding.
If people are really interested it's (now) well
I thought that was what we agreed upon. Should we take out FontAwesome as
well?
On 1/14/15, 12:36 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Last night I tweaked the installer to take out the OSMF and SWFObject
>> options. Folks should make sure it works as expected.
>
>Can you expand on why you rem
Hi,
> Last night I tweaked the installer to take out the OSMF and SWFObject
> options. Folks should make sure it works as expected.
Can you expand on why you removed OSMF (MPL - category B) but not Font Awesome
(OFL - also category B) [1] And why is Font Awesome marked "Required"?
Thanks,
Just
On 1/13/15, 11:47 PM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>Alex,
>
>I see you've been working on the mobile Mustella failures. Just so we
>don't cross our beams, what else is on your plate with regard to the
>4.14 release?
If I have time I will look at the DateSpinner failures.
Last night I tweaked the in
> +1 for doing it required in the installer.
> Information on Wiki is not enough in my opinion.
I've started a new thread on this subject.
EdB
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>So, we can make this required, or we should somehow explain during the
>installation that that license is needed for FlatSpark.
Perhaps we could change the already existing hint:
From:
"The FlatSpark theme uses fonts licensed under the Open Font License. Do you
want to install the Font Awesome a
+1 for doing it required in the installer.
Information on Wiki is not enough in my opinion.
Piotr
-
Apache Flex PMC
piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/4-14-release-status-update-tp43705p44292.html
Sent from the
Ok, I just confirmed this.
I installed 2 versions of 4.14, one without checking the "Adobe Embedded
Font Libraries and Utilites" license.
I get that exact error only when I use the version that I didn't accept
that license.
So, we can make this required, or we should somehow explain during the
i
I am installing the sdk again right now to confirm the issue.
> Ah! Is this information in the Wiki article? If not, it should be, so
> we can tell people to RTFM ;-)
We just need a confirmation and I'll add it to the wiki.
> If it is needed for FlatSpark why it is optional ? :)
I think we were debating this in another email.
If it is needed for FlatSpark why it is optional ? :)
Piotr
-
Apache Flex PMC
piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/4-14-release-status-update-tp43705p44287.html
Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list
;
>> > Piotr
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -
>> > Apache Flex PMC
>> > piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com
>> > --
>> > View this message in context:
>> http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/4-14-rel
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-34700
> >
> > Piotr
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > Apache Flex PMC
> > piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/4-14-release-st
t this jira
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-34700
>
> Piotr
>
>
>
> -
> Apache Flex PMC
> piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/4-14-release-status-update-tp43705p44281.ht
Erik,
I'm really concerning about this jira
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-34700
Piotr
-
Apache Flex PMC
piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/4-14-release-status-update-tp43705p44281.html
Sent fro
Alex,
I see you've been working on the mobile Mustella failures. Just so we
don't cross our beams, what else is on your plate with regard to the
4.14 release?
Thanks,
EdB
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 5:23 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala
wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2015 1:34 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> O
On Jan 10, 2015 1:34 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/8/15, 1:00 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote:
> >
> >The intention is to keep the graphics just the same, but move the display
> >logic to the new skin. Obviously something weren't wrong with the move,
> >just wrong enough to break the test
On 1/8/15, 1:00 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote:
>
>The intention is to keep the graphics just the same, but move the display
>logic to the new skin. Obviously something weren't wrong with the move,
>just wrong enough to break the tests.
>
I remember you asking about skin sizing. I took a qui
: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [4.14] release status update
On Jan 7, 2015 7:56 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/7/15, 7:17 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>
> >
> > - a whole bunch of mobile tests fail
>
> I looked into this last night. I
On Jan 7, 2015 7:56 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/7/15, 7:17 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>
> >
> > - a whole bunch of mobile tests fail
>
> I looked into this last night. I think there may be several issues, but I
> think most failures are caused by a slight change to the graphics for the
> Separately, are we ready to remove the OSMF and SWFObject prompts from the
> install scripts?
If I understood correctly, Justin has picked that up... Justin?
EdB
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
On 1/7/15, 7:17 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>
> - a whole bunch of mobile tests fail
I looked into this last night. I think there may be several issues, but I
think most failures are caused by a slight change to the graphics for the
BusyIndicator used in the test. IOW, most ActionBar tests a
OK, we're getting closer:
- still hoping for an AIR 16 release
- Justin needs a bit more time for the final fixes for the 'legal' issues
- we have two sets of Mustella failures to worry about:
- FXG tests fail with FP/AIR 16
- a whole bunch of mobile tests fail
I'm sure the first two will res
Hi,
The release is progressing nicely.
I've just 'closed' the release branch for regular fixes. We're now in
full stabilization mode, trying to fix the failing Mustella tests, and
resolve the licensing issues. I've addressed the status and progress
of these issues in their respective threads.
Te
Fixed two more issues: FLEX-34693 and FLEX-34695
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Mahmoud Ali wrote:
>
> OK, you should be able to assign issues to yourself now.
>>
>
> Thank you Alex.
>
> I already resolved FLEX-34694 and FLEX-34692, both were reported by Olaf
> and were related to FlatSpark.
>
>
> OK, you should be able to assign issues to yourself now.
>
Thank you Alex.
I already resolved FLEX-34694 and FLEX-34692, both were reported by Olaf
and were related to FlatSpark.
OK, you should be able to assign issues to yourself now.
On 12/18/14, 2:05 AM, "Mahmoud Ali Neto" wrote:
>I have a JIRA account created (akamud), I can't assign issues to me. but
>I'm already resolving FLEX-34692 and FLEX-34682.
Thank you.
I've updated the RELEASE_NOTES and the 'want to fix' JIRA ticket.
EdB
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Mihai Chira wrote:
> Both FLEX-26478 and FLEX-34609 are resolved, and now (after making
> sure they're in the 4.14 RC) I marked them as resolved in Jira.
>
> On 18 December 2014
Both FLEX-26478 and FLEX-34609 are resolved, and now (after making
sure they're in the 4.14 RC) I marked them as resolved in Jira.
On 18 December 2014 at 09:22, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've just cherry-picked the changes from the release branch into the
> develop branch. I've chosen to che
I have a JIRA account created (akamud), I can't assign issues to me. but
I'm already resolving FLEX-34692 and FLEX-34682.
Hi,
I've just cherry-picked the changes from the release branch into the
develop branch. I've chosen to cherry-pick rather than merge because
of the issues we had with a failed merge earlier this week, which made
the release branch a bit of a mess. I plan to do this more regularly
from now on, in
The full suite has run successfully on all 4 player combos. Justin checked
in his fixes, I believe, so with a couple of more runs (so far there has
never been a failure on only one player combo... I know, "famous last
words"), we should be in good shape to start a release cycle.
EdB
On Mon, Fe
Hi,
I think they might have a few other more pressing issues:
http://monitoring.apache.org/status/
(I see a lot of red there)
BTW Apache wiki site is down as well.
Thanks,
Justin
Builds@a.o mostly - if I don't irritate them with premature or excessive
complaints - has the 'windows1' node up and running in 1, maybe 2 days
after the first report. I've humbly asked them (probably Gavin) for help.
All Mustella runs pass, but as you suggest we might want to wait until a
full cy
Hi Folks,
I just pinged Infra about the Jenkins slave being off-line. It is
blocking the ability to push an Installer RC because I would like it to
point to FlexJS and Falcon builds. I suppose I can cut for-fun RCs for
FlexJS and Falcon and change the config files to point to them, but maybe
Inf
Paul,
I changed version to 4.6.0 in the ..\sdks\4.9.1\flex-sdk-description.xml
file and design view works just fine. But I don't bank on it all the
time. Eventually, like Nick, i'll have to re-train my brain and stop using
Design view. Really a bummer they stopped working on that, it's great fo
Paul,
Design View is no longer supported for anything that we (Apache) produce.
Flash Builder 4.6 and below tied the specific SDK version with a special
module within the IDE that was used to render the DV. We don't have the
ability to patch FB4.6 (esp. since FB 4.7 replaced it, and no longer
su
On 7/31/2013 12:58 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala wrote:
"eclipse becomes violently drunk"
Yes, that is an actual technical term :-)
yeah when eclipse starts belting out this tune, its time to shut it down ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUeKDtMV1gA
"eclipse becomes violently drunk"
Yes, that is an actual technical term :-)
On 7/30/2013 10:17 PM, Chris Martin wrote:
I use FB 4.6 and I actually have to modify the flex-sdk-description file to
say 4.6.0 because when it detects newer versions of Flex, it will forceably
say that the version of flex is not compatible with design view. Still
trying to get an eye out for a
I use FB 4.6 and I actually have to modify the flex-sdk-description file to
say 4.6.0 because when it detects newer versions of Flex, it will forceably
say that the version of flex is not compatible with design view. Still
trying to get an eye out for an IDE that supports a design view so I can
mo
No harm done, I'm sure. And I want re-iterate that I strongly agree
that we shouldn't 'fake' version numbers to work around this issue. A
simple fix is available (changing to single digit version numbering)
and I'm sure we would never fix one IDE by knowingly breaking another.
EdB
On Mon, Jul 2
On 29.07.2013 12:43, Erik de Bruin wrote:
Alexander,
I appreciate your input and I agree that we shouldn't break other IDEs
to fix a FB issue. I would however, as a representative of the
producer of IntelliJ IDEA, be careful to publicly state that you like
best the solution that cripples Flash B
I concur as I use fb and fdt
aYo
www.ayobinitie.com
mrbinitie.blogspot.com
On 29 Jul 2013 09:44, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
> Alexander,
>
> I appreciate your input and I agree that we shouldn't break other IDEs
> to fix a FB issue. I would however, as a representative of the
> producer of IntelliJ
Alexander,
I appreciate your input and I agree that we shouldn't break other IDEs
to fix a FB issue. I would however, as a representative of the
producer of IntelliJ IDEA, be careful to publicly state that you like
best the solution that cripples Flash Builder.
EdB
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:33
On 27.07.2013 2:03, Alex Harui wrote:
For #2: The FB code is assuming that versions in flex-sdk-description.xml
are single digits, so 4.9 parses but 4.10 does not. I'm not sure there is
a way for us to hack FB with a patch, and I don't imagine I can get Adobe
to respond in the timeframe we want.
OK, found time to look. The working SWF is not using mx.data.DataList
which is why it won't throw the verify error. Somehow, when you are
regenerating the data classes, the data wizard decided that it didn't need
DataList and other LCDS classes.
If that works for you, great, but for those who mu
I thought I was alone in finding 4.10 confusing. I think it might be a
good idea to call this 4.9.5 or 5.0
On 27 Jul 2013 07:20, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>
>
> On 7/26/13 5:51 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >> 1. Folks using ResourceModules via flashvars will get exceptions. The
> >> po
Yes I will, if I can help anymore just let me
Regards,
Swen van zanten
Compuniek Bedrijfsautomatisering
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
Op 27 jul. 2013 om 19:22 heeft Alex Harui het volgende
geschreven:
> OK, thanks. Can you keep those links up for a couple of days?
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
>
OK, thanks. Can you keep those links up for a couple of days?
Thanks,
-Alex
On 7/27/13 2:06 AM, "Swen van Zanten" wrote:
>Op 27 jul. 2013, om 06:20 heeft Alex Harui het
>volgende geschreven:
>
>>
>>
>> On 7/26/13 5:51 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>>
3. LCDS customers will receive verif
Op 27 jul. 2013, om 06:20 heeft Alex Harui het volgende
geschreven:
>
>
> On 7/26/13 5:51 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
>>> 3. LCDS customers will receive verify errors when using mx.data.DataItem
>>> and users with custom IList implementations will need to upgrade their
>>> implementations.
>The parsing reg exp pasted in another thread doesn't look to be the issue.
> >
> > It contains \\d+ which match for more than one digit. and would parse
> >4.10.0 with that expression as "4.10.0", ".10.0" and ".0".
> OK, I'll keep looking then. I haven't tried it myself. Are folks who are
> hit
On 7/26/13 5:54 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> +1 to reverting the change. There could be thirdparty components for
>>which
>> the source code may not be readily accessible. This could be a big
>> problem.
>Not really there's is a work around ie revert the change in the SDK and
>recomp
On 7/26/13 5:51 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> 1. Folks using ResourceModules via flashvars will get exceptions. The
>> population affected is small, but enough folks use them that already two
>> folks on our dev list have said they are affected.
>But your fix fixes this right?
Yes
>
>>
Hi,
> +1 to reverting the change. There could be thirdparty components for which
> the source code may not be readily accessible. This could be a big
> problem.
Not really there's is a work around ie revert the change in the SDK and
recompile. As everyone has access to the source code they pa
Hi,
> 1. Folks using ResourceModules via flashvars will get exceptions. The
> population affected is small, but enough folks use them that already two
> folks on our dev list have said they are affected.
But your fix fixes this right?
> 2. The default template for new projects in Flash Builder i
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At this point, I think we have three significant issues in the release.
>
> 1. Folks using ResourceModules via flashvars will get exceptions. The
> population affected is small, but enough folks use them that already two
> folks on our
Hi, that issue is issue #3 in my list. Can you provide more information
about how you fixed it? I would think you would have to swap out 4.10.0
swcs for 4.9.x swcs.
On 7/26/13 3:19 PM, "Swen van Zanten" wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>I had this [1] today on a new project alsoŠ I guess this is a bug too..
Hi All,
I had this [1] today on a new project also… I guess this is a bug too.. Or a fb
bug.. With 4.9.1 I haven't had this problem.
The same way i fixed this with a new project as I did with a old project.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-33631
Regards,
SWEN VAN ZANTEN
Hoofdstra
Hi,
At this point, I think we have three significant issues in the release.
1. Folks using ResourceModules via flashvars will get exceptions. The
population affected is small, but enough folks use them that already two
folks on our dev list have said they are affected.
2. The default template fo
62 matches
Mail list logo
