Re: [4.14] binary vs. source package legal docs

2015-01-05 Thread Justin Mclean
HI, Interesting enough it ends up we only bundle one of the nine Saxon jars but have included all of the NOTICE files. Unhelpfully the saxon jar we do use doesn't include any LICENSE or NOTICE. Justin

Re: TLF test output

2015-01-05 Thread piotrz
Great Erik! Just let us know in what location archived reports will be stored. Piotr - Apache Flex PMC piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com -- View this message in context: http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/TLF-test-output-tp44123p44148.html Sent from the Apache Flex Development ma

Re: [4.14] binary vs. source package legal docs

2015-01-05 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, After a look at the notices and peeking inside all of the jars I think I've worked out what we need to add. The following are used in saxon.jar: UNICODE notice CERN notice Resolver notice THAI notice The following are not use or used in other jars: ANT notice - not used Xerces notice - used

Re: TLF test output

2015-01-05 Thread Erik de Bruin
The job status screen: http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-tlf/ Now holds both an 'artifacts' section, where the XMLs are archived, as well as an 'test results' section, where you get a JUnit style report. HTH, EdB On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 9:09 AM, piotrz wrote: > Great Erik! Ju

Re: [4.14] binary vs. source package legal docs

2015-01-05 Thread Erik de Bruin
Thank you, Justin. Since the only other 'opinion' has just gone to bed, please commit. Waiting for his response will add a delay I'd like to avoid. Alex will review during his morning, and the last time he found no issues in your commit, so I'm sure these changes will be fine as well. Am I correc

Re: [4.14] binary vs. source package legal docs

2015-01-05 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, > Since the only other 'opinion' has just gone to bed, please commit. I still have to work out the contents that go into the NOTICE but that's reasonably straight forward. > Am I correct that after these changes all known licensing and other > legal issues have been resolved - for this rele

Re: [4.14] binary vs. source package legal docs

2015-01-05 Thread Erik de Bruin
> Still to do: > - Modify the binary notice file > - Changes to the build script to copy the new licences into lib external > - Changes to the installer script for the SDK You are working on the first two, correct? And the third, is that an Alex thing, or are you 'on that' as well? EdB -- Ix

Re: TLF test output

2015-01-05 Thread Harbs
Awesome! This will be very helpful. Thanks! On Jan 5, 2015, at 11:10 AM, Erik de Bruin wrote: > The job status screen: > > http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-tlf/ > > Now holds both an 'artifacts' section, where the XMLs are archived, as > well as an 'test results' section, whe

Re: [4.14] binary vs. source package legal docs

2015-01-05 Thread Alex Harui
On 1/5/15, 1:05 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: >JAMESCLARK notice - used in saxon9-xpath.jar > >Any differing opinions? I did get a slightly different result. I agree with all of the other findings, but I think I see James Clark in saxon9.jar. You tend to be better at digging through this stuff,

Re: [4.14] binary vs. source package legal docs

2015-01-05 Thread Erik de Bruin
While you guys are busy (and please don't let me distract you), a quick theoretical question: Why don't we just throw in each and every license we might possibly need, and call it a day? What's wrong with one or two too many licenses? EdB On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > >

Re: [4.14] binary vs. source package legal docs

2015-01-05 Thread Alex Harui
On 1/5/15, 9:47 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote: >While you guys are busy (and please don't let me distract you), a >quick theoretical question: > >Why don't we just throw in each and every license we might possibly >need, and call it a day? What's wrong with one or two too many >licenses? The how-t

Re: [4.14] binary vs. source package legal docs

2015-01-05 Thread Erik de Bruin
> FWIW, in case anybody is actually still following this thread, IMO, we > need at least one more PMC member who plans to vote on this release to > review these changes. That’s a reason behind the requirement of 3 +1 > votes, that 3 sets of eyes are better than 1 or 2. We need more PMC > members

Re: [4.14] binary vs. source package legal docs

2015-01-05 Thread Harbs
My eyes kind of glazed over at the beginning of the discussion, so I’m kind of with Erik on this… On Jan 5, 2015, at 8:33 PM, Erik de Bruin wrote: >> FWIW, in case anybody is actually still following this thread, IMO, we >> need at least one more PMC member who plans to vote on this release to

4.14

2015-01-05 Thread Subscriptions
Hi All, Spotted a couple of minor issues with 4.14 (release branch)... local-template.properties: release = Apache Flex 4.12.0 release.version = 4.12.0 should be: release = Apache Flex 4.14.0 release.version = 4.14.0 env-template.properties: doesnt make any mention of BLAZEDS_HOME - i belie

Re: 4.14

2015-01-05 Thread Erik de Bruin
Good catch! Would you mind giving the fixes a go? EdB On Monday, January 5, 2015, Subscriptions wrote: > Hi All, > > Spotted a couple of minor issues with 4.14 (release branch)... > > local-template.properties: > > release = Apache Flex 4.12.0 > release.version = 4.12.0 > > should be: > > re

Re: [4.14] binary vs. source package legal docs

2015-01-05 Thread Alex Harui
On 1/5/15, 10:48 AM, "Harbs" wrote: >My eyes kind of glazed over at the beginning of the discussion, so I’m >kind of with Erik on this… Well, at least you are trying to follow. Hopefully, reviewing is easier than figuring out what changes to make. While it would be great to have other PMC me

Re: [4.14] binary vs. source package legal docs

2015-01-05 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, > I did get a slightly different result. I agree with all of the other > findings, but I think I see James Clark in saxon9.jar. Yep agree that required, looks like he also contributed the RegExp code. Thanks, Justin

Re: [4.14] binary vs. source package legal docs

2015-01-05 Thread Justin Mclean
HI, When looking for stuff find is your friend - you can use to to search for none Apache licenses or other stuff: In the source this: find . -name "*.*" -exec grep -i "James" {} \; -print 2>/dev/null Shows this: ./net/sf/saxon/regex/JDK15RegexTranslator.java And in the binary: find . -name "

Re: [4.14] binary vs. source package legal docs

2015-01-05 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, I've made the changes to NOTICE and LICENSE for saxon9 but there may be a further legal issue we need to resolve. The James Clark license is MIT/X11 (or similar) license with an anti advertising clause. I think this is a reaction to the BSD license with the advertising clause and should be

Re: [4.14] binary vs. source package legal docs

2015-01-05 Thread Alex Harui
On 1/5/15, 1:56 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: >Hi, > >I've made the changes to NOTICE and LICENSE for saxon9 but there may be a >further legal issue we need to resolve. The James Clark license is >MIT/X11 (or similar) license with an anti advertising clause. I think >this is a reaction to the BSD

[4.14] # Apache Flex SDK 4.14 nightly build 61: Successful

2015-01-05 Thread flex . ci . builds
flex-sdk_release-candidate - Build #61 - Successful Changes since last build: [jmclean] added Saxon9 changes to LICENSE and NOTICE For more information, check the console output at http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-sdk_release-candidate/61/.

Re: -keep-generated-actionscript error?

2015-01-05 Thread Alex Harui
On 1/4/15, 7:15 AM, "Héctor A" wrote: >Just tested, creating an empty TabNavApp and enabling >-keep-generated-actionscript causes the same error. I created a new mobile project that was a TabNavApp and turned on -keep-generated-actionscript and didn’t get an error. Did you try rebooting and re

Re: -keep-generated-actionscript error?

2015-01-05 Thread Héctor A
I rarely leave FB open for long, could it be because I tried on FB 4.6? I even tried a clean Flex 4.13 + AIR 15 install. I'll try with FlashDevelop asap. 2015年1月6日火曜日、Alex Haruiさんは書きました: > On 1/4/15, 7:15 AM, "Héctor A" > > wrote: > > >Just tested, creating an empty TabNavApp and enabling > >-ke

Best way to modify and test possible bug in Callout.as ?

2015-01-05 Thread kevin.godell
I have an issue with the positioning of a callout that is created from the calloutbutton's calloutContent. In the simulator, the callout positions itself correctly to the calloutbutton when rotating the screen. On both of my android tablets(sony and samsung), the callout loses its position and ends

Re: Best way to modify and test possible bug in Callout.as ?

2015-01-05 Thread Carlos Velasco
You may better create a CustomCallout which extends Callout and modifies its behaviour as to fit your needs. In the end you only have to overwrite the methods to place your hidding code and finally call the super function. 2015-01-05 22:50 GMT-03:00 kevin.godell : > I have an issue with the posit

Re: Best way to modify and test possible bug in Callout.as ?

2015-01-05 Thread kevin.godell
Thanks for the response. I think that my question was missed due to the long post. I do not want to hide the callout, that is just a workaround. I want to fix the source code so that the callout gets positioned properly when resizing. I need my edited version of Callout.as to be used, instead of th

Re: Best way to modify and test possible bug in Callout.as ?

2015-01-05 Thread kevin.godell
Ok, I have monkey patching setup. My problem was that when I copied the Callout.as, I did not include the folder structures spark/components/Callout.as into my folder that I added to my project's source path. Sorry to bother everyone. -- View this message in context: http://apache-flex-developm

Re: AW: [4.14] how to use the new FlatSpark theme?

2015-01-05 Thread rodneyh
Not sure if this has been reported, but I believe there may be a bug in the flatspark.skins.ButtonIconSkin.mxml as of Flex SDK 4.14 nightly build #61... The default state of the buttonIcon is up(stateUp). The fill_over, fill_down, and fill_disabled rects are included in the corresponding states onl