Re: [4.14] release status update

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 from the

Re: [4.14] release status update

I saw it, looks like an isolated problem (single reporter). His problem seems related to a missing or incorrectly linked FlatSpark SWC. We have some time, let's look into it. EdB On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 9:09 AM, piotrz wrote: > Erik, > > I'm really concerning about this jira > https://issues.

[4.14] # Apache Flex SDK 4.14 nightly build 70: Successful

flex-sdk_release-candidate - Build #70 - Successful Changes since last build: [Alex Harui] remove OSMF and SWFObject license approval For more information, check the console output at http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-sdk_release-candidate/70/.

Re: [Mobile] [Mustella] Need help with the Mustella tests

> 2 - SpinnerList (fails 2) > This was indeed a question of resetting the 'accentColor' style to > '#00', which fixed all but 2 I took another look at these 2 and I'm now convinced the baselines are wrong. As the default 'accentColor' is black, and the tests do not override this style, the 'ba

Re: [4.14] release status update

If I remember correctly we had this problem when we didn't check the fonts license during the install. It is optional, but it is needed for FlatSpark. On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Erik de Bruin wrote: > I saw it, looks like an isolated problem (single reporter). His > problem seems related t

[4.14 - LAST CALL] getting ready for the RC

Hi, As the subject suggests, we're on the verge of cutting the Apache Flex SDK 4.14 Release Candidate. And we need your help! We're currently working on issues in three areas: 1) checking the licensing information 2) fixing some regressions in the mobile component skins 3) making sure the new Fl

Re: [4.14] release status update

Ah! Is this information in the Wiki article? If not, it should be, so we can tell people to RTFM ;-) EdB On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Mahmoud Ali wrote: > If I remember correctly we had this problem when we didn't check the fonts > license during the install. It is optional, but it is nee

Re: [4.14] release status update

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 arc

Re: [4.14] release status update

> 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.

Re: [4.14] release status update

I am installing the sdk again right now to confirm the issue.

Re: [4.14] release status update

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

Re: [4.14] release status update

+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 A

AW: [4.14] release status update

>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

[4.14] # Apache Flex SDK 4.14 nightly build 71: Successful

flex-sdk_release-candidate - Build #71 - Successful Changes since last build: [erik] Don't need to set this default For more information, check the console output at http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-sdk_release-candidate/71/.

[GitHub] flex-sdk pull request: FLEX-34712 bug fix for callout positioning ...

GitHub user kevinGodell opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/flex-sdk/pull/14 FLEX-34712 bug fix for callout positioning on android device rotation Created function queued_systemManager_resizeHandler() and moved code from systemManager_resizeHandler() to that new functio

[4.14] Adobe Embedded Font Libs and Utils required for FlatSpark skins

Hi, Moving here from the 'release' thread. The argument is that since FlatSpark requires the Adobe Embedded Font stuff and the SDK "requires" FlatSpark, we should change the Embedded Font stuff from (Optional) to (Required). Pros and cons? EdB -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27

Re: [4.14] release status update

> +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

Re: [4.14] Adobe Embedded Font Libs and Utils required for FlatSpark skins

HI, > The argument is that since FlatSpark requires the Adobe Embedded Font > stuff and the SDK "requires" FlatSpark, we should change the Embedded > Font stuff from (Optional) to (Required). My understanding is that (legally) as i't's not under an Apache compatible license it needs to be an opt

Re: [4.14 - LAST CALL] getting ready for the RC

hi, i would like to contribute, i tried to download the night rel but i cannot find the nightly build link, where is it? in the installer? on the web? Thank you! Angelo Il giorno Wed Jan 14 2015 at 10:07:07 Erik de Bruin ha scritto: > Hi, > > As the subject suggests, we're on the verge of cutti

Re: [4.14] Adobe Embedded Font Libs and Utils required for FlatSpark skins

>> The argument is that since FlatSpark requires the Adobe Embedded Font >> stuff and the SDK "requires" FlatSpark, we should change the Embedded >> Font stuff from (Optional) to (Required). > > My understanding is that (legally) as i't's not under an Apache compatible > license it needs to be an

Re: [4.14] Adobe Embedded Font Libs and Utils required for FlatSpark skins

I think the Required/Optional refers more to the fact that you are either unable to build the SDK without that component - Required - or that you can build it without - Optional, you lose functionality though. So, calling the Embedded Font stuff required doesn't so much reflect on the license (as

Re: [4.14] Adobe Embedded Font Libs and Utils required for FlatSpark skins

Hi, > I think the Required/Optional refers more to the fact that you are > either unable to build the SDK without that component No sorry it a legal requirement [1] Justin 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional

Re: [4.14] Adobe Embedded Font Libs and Utils required for FlatSpark skins

So, we need to make 'playerglobal.swc' Optional? EdB On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > >> I think the Required/Optional refers more to the fact that you are >> either unable to build the SDK without that component > > No sorry it a legal requirement [1] > > Justin >

[4.14] BusyIndicator skin applicationDPI

Hi All, I've installed the latest sdk build to test if the BusyIndicator skin issue was solved. The skin itself is found but FlexGlobals.topLevelApplication.applicationDPI is not found/doesn't exist Could it be a configuration issue? Anyone had this error?  protected functio

Re: [4.14] Adobe Embedded Font Libs and Utils required for FlatSpark skins

I think installing FlatSpark but throwing errors that the users will not understand is not a good idea. If the license is optional, then FlatSpark's installation should depend on that license.

Re: [4.14] Adobe Embedded Font Libs and Utils required for FlatSpark skins

On 1/14/15, 4:46 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote: >So, we need to make 'playerglobal.swc' Optional? Playerglobal is a ‘Build Tool’ and falls under different rules. Let me look into whether the font libraries are part of the ‘Build Tool’ category or not. I just realized it might be. -Alex

Re: [Mobile] [Mustella] Need help with the Mustella tests

On 1/14/15, 12:54 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote: >> 2 - SpinnerList (fails 2) >> This was indeed a question of resetting the 'accentColor' style to >> '#00', which fixed all but 2 > >I took another look at these 2 and I'm now convinced the baselines are >wrong. As the default 'accentColor' is b

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

I took a quick look. Looked good enough for me. On 1/13/15, 11:44 PM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote: >I have some time today, I'll try to make sense of what there is to see... > >EdB > > > >On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 2:39 AM, Justin Mclean >wrote: >> HI, >> >>> I think we are waiting on Justin go fix up

Re: [4.14] release status update

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

Re: [Mobile] [Mustella] Need help with the Mustella tests

>>> 2 - SpinnerList (fails 2) >>> This was indeed a question of resetting the 'accentColor' style to >>> '#00', which fixed all but 2 >> >>I took another look at these 2 and I'm now convinced the baselines are >>wrong. As the default 'accentColor' is black, and the tests do not >>override this

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

My supremely incapable eyes were thoroughly impressed by the amount of legalese, and all those fancy words sounded true, so the docs must be OK! ;-) EdB On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > I took a quick look. Looked good enough for me. > > On 1/13/15, 11:44 PM, "Erik de Bru

Re: [Mobile] [Mustella] Need help with the Mustella tests

In my digging around, it appears that SpinnerList had a ‘bug’ where it never applied accentColor to the renderer (more specifically, that the renderer never was set to a selected state). Om made a change to set the renderer to a selected state so it started picking up the accentColor. IMO, we need

Re: [Mobile] [Mustella] Need help with the Mustella tests

If it breaks tests, at this point I suggest we (you?) revert that change on the 'release' branch. That way, it lives on to be fixed on the develop branch, but we'll be a step closer to a passing test suite. EdB On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > In my digging around, it appea

Re: [4.14] BusyIndicator skin applicationDPI

Could you be using mx:Application instead of any of the other Application classes? -Alex From: Dany Dhondt mailto:archeme...@mac.com>> Reply-To: "dev@flex.apache.org" mailto:dev@flex.apache.org>> Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 5:08 AM To: "dev@flex.apache.org

Re: [Mobile] [Mustella] Need help with the Mustella tests

On 1/14/15, 9:47 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote: >If it breaks tests, at this point I suggest we (you?) revert that >change on the 'release' branch. That way, it lives on to be fixed on >the develop branch, but we'll be a step closer to a passing test >suite. Well, I’m assuming that Om made the cha

Re: [4.14] release status update

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

Re: [4.14] release status update

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

Re: [4.14] release status update

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

Re: [Mobile] [Mustella] Need help with the Mustella tests

I checked in a “workarouund”. It might have broken IOS and Android versions of SpinnerLists. Someone who knows better should take a look. The key issues is that there has always been a default accentColor for all of Flex, but SpinnerList was not using it until Om fixed it to get accentColor for a

Re: [4.14] Adobe Embedded Font Libs and Utils required for FlatSpark skins

On 1/14/15, 6:17 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote: > > >On 1/14/15, 4:46 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote: > >>So, we need to make 'playerglobal.swc' Optional? > >Playerglobal is a ‘Build Tool’ and falls under different rules. Let me >look into whether the font libraries are part of the ‘Build Tool’ category

[4.14] # Apache Flex SDK 4.14 nightly build 72: Successful

flex-sdk_release-candidate - Build #72 - Successful Changes since last build: [Alex Harui] need to fix colorname now that baseclass also sets it [Alex Harui] add another style to control whether accentColor is used in Spinners [Alex Harui] add display list xml for these tests For more informa

Re: [Mobile] [Mustella] Need help with the Mustella tests

Alex, this fix seems reasonable to me. I will take a look at how the iOS and Android versions react to this change when I get a chance. Worst case, we can ship with a (minor) defect in the new skins. Thanks, Om On Jan 15, 2015 2:46 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote: > I checked in a “workarouund”. It mi

Re: [Mobile] [Mustella] Need help with the Mustella tests

Om, I'm unable to judge the severity of the remaining issues. Are they minor, medium or major, in terms of developers it's likely to affect. And, do you know of any viable workarounds for the issues? Your answers will help me decide if we can go ahead with the release... Thanks, EdB On Thu,