On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > OK I'll change the config file to do that.
>
> Looks like there's a case issue with it, means it might work on windows
> but will break on OSX/Linux.
>
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/osmf.adobe/files/OSMF%202.0%20Release%20%28fin
Hi,
> I agree with all this. The part: "and test the resulting executable on
> their own platform" is where the problem arises. The binary that our ant
> build creates is useless unless we get all the other dependencies.
Obviously you can't test it fully without the 3rd party dependancies. So ye
Hi,
> Sounds like a change to the Installer is in order, in that case, right?
I was hoping to avoid it but looks like it's required.
Justin
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I agree with all this. The part: "and test the resulting executable on
> > their own platform" is where the problem arises. The binary that our ant
> > build creates is useless unless we get all the other dependencies.
> Obviousl
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Sounds like a change to the Installer is in order, in that case, right?
>
> I was hoping to avoid it but looks like it's required.
>
>
Same here. Tough luck :-(
So, the logic is that we download the file as OSMF.swc and save it a
Justin,
I think you should revert this change. The Mustella tests against 11.9/3.9
have not been run yet. I think it will take at least 24 hours for them to
run.
Your change makes it go live to all current users.
Thanks,
Om
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 8:13 PM, wrote:
> Author: jmclean
> Date:
Hi,
> I never said I don't build the binary myself.
Ah sorry some confusion there I has assumed by this:
"The make scripts never worked for me on my Windows machine."
And other bits of the conversation that you weren't compiling it, my mistake.
> I build sdk binary and load the Installer via th
Hi,
> I think you should revert this change. The Mustella tests against 11.9/3.9
> have not been run yet.
It's not the default selection, and there are other versions of FP in that list
we haven't tested with, so I think it can stay.
But if you want to revert and wait a couple of days go for
There are 2 failures in the 'main' Mustella run. One on RadioButton,
but since that was a timeout, I expect it to go away in new builds.
The one that has been around for a long, long time now is in
ListDragDrop. Me thinks that if that is addressed, we should be good
to go with the vote, especially
We decided we would do CI for this project, to monitor the health of
the codebase on a regular basis. While I might agree that on the face
of it, having one test fail might not be a showstopper, I think that
the system only works if we stick to it. The current failure has been
around for a while no
Hi Om,
I did the code for the concurrent downloads on my github repo as you know
but not had anytime yet for the maven part.
By now my spared time is only the weekend and for the current one, I'll be
busy with the IntelliJ Randori Plugin (that's a while I didn't have time to
work on it) and the p
issue creaated here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-33817
> From: aha...@adobe.com
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 08:35:50 -0700
> Subject: Re: WOFF - font type instead of ttf/otf
>
> I'm not an expert on this stuff at all. This is the first I've heard of
> it, bu
Extend the list and add Event metadata of the additional events you want the
item renderers to dispatch.
Here's an example of a custom TileList I'm currently using in a project.
[Event(name="imageClick",
type="be.gip.twitch.multiviewer.events.TwitchListEvent")]
[Event(name="watch", type="be.gi
Hi,
> The current failure has beenaround for a while now
Actually this is a new issue, the previous longer standing issues have been
fixed.
Justin
Hi,
> We decided we would do CI for this project
Was a VOTE taken if this stops releases? CI is a tool nothing more, nothing
less and we shouldn't be a slave to it.
> and it doesn't look like it will get much attention if it doesn't block the
> VOTE
And if it does block the vote who will fix i
Actually, it isn't... It's been with us since July 12th, on and off.
EdB
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> The current failure has beenaround for a while now
> Actually this is a new issue, the previous longer standing issues have been
> fixed.
>
> Justin
--
Justin, I appreciate all the effort you put into this, and I
understand that you are trying to make releases as painless and quick
as possible.
If you want me to stop doing what I'm doing, I'm fine with that. Until
such a time, I'll keep hammering on zarro boogs before a release. If
you can get so
Hi,
It would help if PMC members actually followed all the steps in validating a
release before voting -1, that would cut down of the number of RC we need to
go through.
I think we should make it a rule you can't vote -1 or +1 until you have checked
everything, otherwise it's just too much wo
Well, that's a good point about a -1 vote causing people to stop looking,
but really, and hopefully, with carryover voting, they shouldn't and
won't. We all owe it to the release manager to do as much digging as
possible before the next RC is cut.
That said, the fact is that many of the 72 hours
On 10/12/13 6:09 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>Actually, it isn't... It's been with us since July 12th, on and off.
There are two failures. One radiobutton issue is new, the DND issue is
old, but I believe it passes on 11.1 player some of the time.
-Alex
Withdrawing -1. I'll vote later after I finish other checks.
I decided the test wasn't written correctly. It has a tabnav with two
textinputs and 3 radio buttons then a fourth radiobutton outside the
tabnav. There was a RadioButtonGroup next to that fourth radiobutton that
wasn't hooked up. Ye
I've already beaten this horse before, but I have to wonder if the lack
of a first class + free design view tool is also a significant factor.
I know that for us, it's a primary factor. We don't want to risk losing
the capability for doing major UI redesigns or tweaks for our production
stuff,
Hi, I suppose the link below should read sdk/4.11.0/rc1 and not sdk/4.10.0/rc1
Maurice
-Message d'origine-
De : Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com]
Envoyé : samedi 12 octobre 2013 02:16
À : dev@flex.apache.org
Objet : [VOTE] Apache Flex 4.11.0 release candidate 1
Hi,
Hi,
- when I start the installer to download 4.11 RC1, the default choice is on AIR
3.8 / FP 11.8, although AIR 3.9 / FP 11.9 are in the list.
Is that intended?
- I am testing 4.11 RC1 with AIR 3.8 / FP11.8, so that they are some
"diversity" in testing config.
If you prefer that I test with AI
Hi, I have quickly tested the new 4.11 RC1.
It looks good to me.
I will continue to do further testing, but this is an "early" report already.
--
Apache Flex 4.11 RC1 Test report :
Configuration:
OS=Windown 7
Locale: FR
Downloaded version:
- Using Apache Fl
-Original Message-
From: Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com]
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 8:11 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: Installer changes to go with 4.11?
Hi,
> 1. Update config to point to OSMF 2.0
It is. I assume you mean so that it uses 2.0 only for 4.1
Hi,
> - when I start the installer to download 4.11 RC1, the default choice is on
> AIR 3.8 / FP 11.8, although AIR 3.9 / FP 11.9 are in the list.
> Is that intended?
It's intentional as we're not fully tested 3.9/11.9 yet.
> - I am testing 4.11 RC1 with AIR 3.8 / FP11.8, so that they are some
Hi,
> We all owe it to the release manager to do as much digging as possible
> before the next RC is cut.
IMO that asking far too much of the release manager, it shouldn't be their job
to find and fix every issue.
Thanks,
Justin
Hi,
>> We all owe it to the release manager to do as much digging as possible
>> before the next RC is cut.
> IMO that asking far too much of the release manager, it shouldn't be their
> job to find and fix every issue.
Which on second reading is exactly what the point is you're trying to make
Hi,
> That said, the fact is that many of the 72 hours
Do you think that have a RC votes open for 5 days rather than 3 cut down on the
number of RCs and thus the total time?
Thanks,
Justin
Hi,
For this failure:
[java] mx/states/Transition/properties/Transition_autoReverse
Transition_autoReverse_Wipe_Full Failed AssertPropertyValue(body:step 4)
transTemplate.monitor.passed false != true
On OSX I get these results:
./mini_run.sh tests/mx/states/Transition
[java] =
On Oct 12, 2013 3:42 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > That said, the fact is that many of the 72 hours
> Do you think that have a RC votes open for 5 days rather than 3 cut down
on the number of RCs and thus the total time?
+1. I am completely slammed this weekend. Some extra time to t
Hi, I have run the same test group (mx/states/Transitions) on latest develop
branch on Windows 7 / FP 11.8 with the following results:
$ ./mini_run.sh tests/mx/states/Transition > test_trans.txt
[java] =
[java] Passes: 132
[ja
Hi,
What make a good test is it being consistently repeatable. We seem to have a
different number of tests on each platform and different results which may be
environment dependant??
It's hard to tell from the exclusions list what is excluded, is there a way for
mustella to show how many tests
On Oct 12, 2013 5:35 PM, wrote:
>
> Updated Branches:
> refs/heads/develop 09c4e92fd -> fe2a2ea3a
>
>
> Updated with the release of FP 11.9 and AIR 3.9
>
>
> Project: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/flex-sdk/repo
> Commit: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/flex-sdk/commit/71d35a69
>
Hi,
For this test:
[java] components/RadioButton/Styles/RadioButton_Mirroring_Styles
RadioButton_Styles_Mirroring_RTL_focusRing Failed DispatchKeyEvent(body:step 2)
Timeout waiting for focusIn from rb
I'm still seeing an issue after Alex's test changes have been merged into
develop - any
Also getting the same failure.
BTW, I also ran the lengthy "components" tests (72 minutes) and got 4 failures.
Actually only 3, as the failure on a bug shouldn't be considered one.
[java] =
[java] Failed:
[java] =
Hi,
> I always wondered about this. Dont we need to change the swf-version as
> well when we make these kind of changes?
It handled in several places.
It part of flex-config.xml and the main build.xml.
Hi,
> But I think you right for the .bat file it's copying the air-config.xml file
> out of the template dir which doesn't have the correct swf version set.
Actually I did change teh template config files as well but the files are
listed in .gitignore!
Justin
On Oct 12, 2013 5:54 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > I always wondered about this. Dont we need to change the swf-version as
> > well when we make these kind of changes?
>
> It handled in several places.
>
> It part of flex-config.xml and the main build.xml.
>
>
>
Hi,
> But we are still downloading FP 11.1 in the bat file. AIR 3.9 and FP 11.1
> require different swf-versions.
I'll change it to download both.
Justin
I would be interested to know what you are doing that you can't accomplish
with Gimp and Inkscape (since free seems to be high on your priority list).
Personally, from my perspective if this is something you are doing
professionally, you need to invest in your tools. Same as does a carpenter,
a me
Hi,
> I'll change it to download both.
Done - someone mind testing/double checking the .bat file for me?
Thanks,
Justin
On 10/12/13 3:41 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> That said, the fact is that many of the 72 hours
>Do you think that have a RC votes open for 5 days rather than 3 cut down
>on the number of RCs and thus the total time?
IIRC, there is precedence for extending the vote past 72 hours when it
Hi,
> IIRC, there is precedence for extending the vote past 72 hours when it
> covers weekends and holidays.
Your assuming that most people has less time over that those periods. That's
may not be the case as only a few people can work on Apache Flex while at their
day job.
> If it were me (and
On 10/12/13 9:41 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> IIRC, there is precedence for extending the vote past 72 hours when it
>> covers weekends and holidays.
>Your assuming that most people has less time over that those periods.
>That's may not be the case as only a few people can work on Apach
RadioButton test is passing for me on develop branch. Nobody else can get
it to pass?
-Alex
On 10/12/13 5:47 PM, "Maurice Amsellem"
wrote:
>Also getting the same failure.
>
>BTW, I also ran the lengthy "components" tests (72 minutes) and got 4
>failures.
>Actually only 3, as the failure on a b
On 10/12/13 5:39 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>What make a good test is it being consistently repeatable. We seem to
>have a different number of tests on each platform and different results
>which may be environment dependant??
>
>It's hard to tell from the exclusions list what is excluded
What are the differences between bitmaps? If there is some pixel
shifting, that can cause the dragdrop to fail.
On 10/12/13 5:47 PM, "Maurice Amsellem"
wrote:
>Also getting the same failure.
>
>BTW, I also ran the lengthy "components" tests (72 minutes) and got 4
>failures.
>Actually only 3, as
Hi,
> I saw you were working towards a new release, but I had no idea what day
> you were actually going to go package stuff up and post it.
See my email on the 5th with the title "Apache Flex 4.11 release test", I did
ask if there was any objections then.
> Therefore I'm not going to bother t
Hi,
It was failing for me. I run the test a few more times and got it to pass with:
[java] =
[java] Passes: 49
[java] Fails: 0
[java] =
To be clear this is the test
Also, I think it might be a good idea that if we include a 'prepare
for RC' phase, I can switch the Mustella VM from the 'develop' branch
to the 'RC' branch. That way, we know we're good for an RC if those
runs pass and not if they fail. The 'develop' branch is always in
motion and difficult to sta
Hmm. I ran that and got 49 and 0 on the first try.
If you watch it run and fail, is focus still ending up in the textinput on
the bottom?
Thanks,
-Alex
On 10/12/13 10:28 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>It was failing for me. I run the test a few more times and got it to pass
>with:
>
>
On 10/12/13 10:17 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> I saw you were working towards a new release, but I had no idea what day
>> you were actually going to go package stuff up and post it.
>See my email on the 5th with the title "Apache Flex 4.11 release test", I
>did ask if there was any obj
Hi,
> If you watch it run and fail, is focus still ending up in the textinput on
> the bottom?
Now it's worked 4 times in a row.
However as far as I can see nothing actually gets the focus (no blue focus
indicators) and the radio buttons are always unselected.
Do we know if the test is passi
Hi,
> All I can say is that from my perspective (from scanning commit emails),
> the RELEASE_NOTES are constantly being fiddled with
I think it safe to assume once it's in a release candidate that they can be
reviewed.
> Giving us 24 hours to react to the latter might save you time and energy
>
Hi,
> Now it's worked 4 times in a row.
BTW that's with 11.1, I was on 11.9 before that - perhaps it's a FP version
issue?
Thanks,
Justin
Hi.
> Also, I think it might be a good idea that if we include a 'prepare
> for RC' phase, I can switch the Mustella VM from the 'develop' branch
> to the 'RC' branch.
Wouldn't it be easier to just ask people to work in branches and not commit
directly directly to develop unless they want it in t
58 matches
Mail list logo
