Hi,
Any comments, questions or issues with the RC7 release just reply to this
thread.
Thanks,
Justin
Hi,
> I don't see a vote thread for RC7.
Looks like it was rejected as spam :-(
Technical details of permanent failure:
Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient
domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further
information about the cause
Hi,
> I don't see a vote thread for RC7.
It was sent. You don't see email you send appear on the list (gogole gmail
issue I think), but I can't see it in the archive either. I resend - thanks for
pointing that out.
> It would be better if we have discussion about RC7 in its own thread.
Agreed
On Dec 23, 2012 8:31 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > I'll give RC7 a whirl tomorrow if I get a chance before heading out for
the holiday.
>
> Thanks + enjoy. Here's hoping I'll not be making RC8 on christmas day
(tomorrow for me) :-)
>
> Justin
>
I don't see a vote thread for RC7. It wo
Hi,
> I'll give RC7 a whirl tomorrow if I get a chance before heading out for the
> holiday.
Thanks + enjoy. Here's hoping I'll not be making RC8 on christmas day (tomorrow
for me) :-)
Justin
Hi,
> Windows 7, tested RC6 with the binary distro and from building it from
> source.
Thanks for that info, I'm on OSX so good to know it fine on windows as well.
There is only very minor differences between the RC6 and RC7 and none that
effect the actual SDK. Minor changes to the README and bu
Windows 7, tested RC6 with the binary distro and from building it from
source. I'll give RC7 a whirl tomorrow if I get a chance before heading
out for the holiday.
-Nick
On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I didn't verify the RAT or that jazz, but the source and b
Hi,
> I didn't verify the RAT or that jazz, but the source and binary builds seem
> good. My last-minute-check of my projects seem good.
Good to know, what OS did you use? and did you use the SDK installer or not?
Thanks,
Justin
Hi,
> I'm ready for the next RC.
RC7 is released.
> Let me know if you need help
Thanks - all good for now I think.
Justin
Hi,
> I saw your checkin. I agree that is the right thing to do. I ran ant main
> release and rat is clean.
Same here rat is fine, it compiles and md5 hashes are correct.
> I'm ready for the next RC. Let me know if you need help.
Just uploading now - almost done after 2 hours.
Thanks,
Justin
I didn't verify the RAT or that jazz, but the source and binary builds seem
good. My last-minute-check of my projects seem good.
-Nick
On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> I saw your checkin. I agree that is the right thing to do. I ran ant main
> release and rat is clean.
I saw your checkin. I agree that is the right thing to do. I ran ant main
release and rat is clean. I'm ready for the next RC. Let me know if you
need help.
On 12/23/12 1:01 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
> I take a look at this today
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://bl
I take a look at this today
Some packages.dita files appear to be checked into SVN. So not all seem to
be generated. And the ones not generated need headers. That's is a pretty
clear rule from Apache.
So, at some point today, one of needs to figure out:
1) Are they all generated and thus none should be in SVN?
2) If gener
On Dec 23, 2012 1:12 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > Rat-check failed with two issues. I'm fixing that now and running rat
again
> > (takes about an hour). I also fixed a minor issue in the README since
we're
> > going to have to re-kit again.
>
> It does look like it related to as_docs
Hi,
> Rat-check failed with two issues. I'm fixing that now and running rat again
> (takes about an hour). I also fixed a minor issue in the README since we're
> going to have to re-kit again.
It does look like it related to as_docs, at a guess the en_US locale is hard
coded in the clean and t
Hi,
> Strangely, on this run, RAT caught packages.dita files in rpc and
> textlayout. It is too late at night for me to figure out why there were not
> in the first
> rat report. Maybe you have a better knowledge of what these files are for.
XML generated files I think when creating the asdocs?
OK, checked in a build.xml that excludes a batik icon.
Strangely, on this run, RAT caught packages.dita files in rpc and
textlayout.
It is too late at night for me to figure out why there were not in the first
rat report. Maybe you have a better knowledge of what these files are for.
Hopefully yo
Justin,
Rat-check failed with two issues. I'm fixing that now and running rat again
(takes about an hour). I also fixed a minor issue in the README since we're
going to have to re-kit again.
I'll email again with the all clear when rat is clean and I check in
build.xml.
While waiting for rat I
Hi,
This is a Apache Flex 4.9.0 release candidate 6. Please see the RELEASE_NOTES
and the README.
Fixed in this release candidate:
- Fix so that the release build compiles the experimental projects (issue with
empty.properties being removed from binary package)
The release candidate can be fo
20 matches
Mail list logo
