On 12/12/12 3:18 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> The truncation of text is changed from 4.8 to the current code. There was
>> an attempt to speed up truncation that caused a problem. I'm trying to fix
>> that now without sacrificing much of the speed up.
>
> Thanks for explaining tha
Hi,
> The truncation of text is changed from 4.8 to the current code. There was
> an attempt to speed up truncation that caused a problem. I'm trying to fix
> that now without sacrificing much of the speed up.
Thanks for explaining that. How big a problem is this? are we talking a few
pixels o
On 12/12/12 2:34 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> We need to run mustella on any RC.
> Sure.
>
>> My guess is that you will need Alex's fix for the truncation issue for some
>> of the mustella tests to pass.
> My understanding is the tests were changed and now the tests don't pass, it'
Hi,
> We need to run mustella on any RC.
Sure.
> My guess is that you will need Alex's fix for the truncation issue for some
> of the mustella tests to pass.
My understanding is the tests were changed and now the tests don't pass, it's
not that how text is truncated in the SDK has changed.
J
On 12/12/12 3 :54PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "last fixes". I forgot to start a
>>mustella
>> run on the changes I have pending last night. I have moved the changes
>>over
>> to my Windows computer and am setting up to run mustella against RC2
>>(now
>> t
Much better!
On 12/12/12 1:10 PM, "Frédéric THOMAS" wrote:
> Done ! :$
>
> -Message d'origine-
> From: Alex Harui
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:01 PM
> To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Test Release of Apache Flex 4.9
>
Done ! :$
-Message d'origine-
From: Alex Harui
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:01 PM
To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Test Release of Apache Flex 4.9
Fred,
I tried to run mustella and got an error about a missing class ErrorArray.
Did you check it in?
On
F--ck, you right, I'm checking in now.
-Message d'origine-
From: Alex Harui
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:01 PM
To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Test Release of Apache Flex 4.9
Fred,
I tried to run mustella and got an error about a missing class Error
On 12/12/12 12:54 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "last fixes". I forgot to start a mustella
>> run on the changes I have pending last night. I have moved the changes over
>> to my Windows computer and am setting up to run mustella against RC2 (now
>> tha
cause you answered my question
> anyway.
>
> - Fred.
>
> -Message d'origine-
> From: Alex Harui
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 9:44 PM
> To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Test Release of Apache Flex 4.9
>
>
>
>
> On 12/12/
tests)
- Fred
-Message d'origine-
From: Justin Mclean
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 9:54 PM
To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Test Release of Apache Flex 4.9
Hi,
I'm not sure what you mean by "last fixes". I forgot to start a mustella
run on the ch
Hi,
> I'm not sure what you mean by "last fixes". I forgot to start a mustella
> run on the changes I have pending last night. I have moved the changes over
> to my Windows computer and am setting up to run mustella against RC2 (now
> that I've fixed the build script). If that passes then I wil
rg
Subject: Re: Test Release of Apache Flex 4.9
On 12/12/12 12:30 PM, "Frédéric THOMAS" wrote:
Then will run mustella on it. Has anyone done a full mustella run on the
rc
I didn't do it on the rc but the develop branch today and was wondering if
the last fixes could be integ
>
>
> If we are going to have installer v.2 support only Flex 4.9, I will be able
> to get it working in the next week or so.
>
+1
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Forget my question, just seen the script relies on the develop branch :P
-Message d'origine-
From: Frédéric THOMAS
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 9:30 PM
To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Test Release of Apache Flex 4.9
Then will run mustella on it. Has anyone d
On 12/12/12 12:30 PM, "Frédéric THOMAS" wrote:
>> Then will run mustella on it. Has anyone done a full mustella run on the
>> rc
>
> I didn't do it on the rc but the develop branch today and was wondering if
> the last fixes could be integrated in the rc.
I'm not sure what you mean by "last
2012 9:23 PM
To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Test Release of Apache Flex 4.9
On 12/12/12 12:19 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
Hi,
I think the next installer should install just Apache Flex 4.9. Both the
SDK and the installer should be released the same day.
We coul
On 12/12/12 12:19 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> I think the next installer should install just Apache Flex 4.9. Both the
>> SDK and the installer should be released the same day.
>
> We could have a vote of the SDK release today, a vote for the installer is
> probably some time off a
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I think the next installer should install just Apache Flex 4.9. Both the
> > SDK and the installer should be released the same day.
>
> We could have a vote of the SDK release today, a vote for the installer is
> probably some time
Hi,
> I think the next installer should install just Apache Flex 4.9. Both the
> SDK and the installer should be released the same day.
We could have a vote of the SDK release today, a vote for the installer is
probably some time off and I'm not sure if anyone is working on it.
Justin
I think the next installer should install just Apache Flex 4.9. Both the
SDK and the installer should be released the same day. If the release
approvals don't happen at the same time then we should hold back the first
piece, presumably the SDK, until the installer is approved.
The installer work
Hi,
> Not sure what you mean by "There is a newer version of TLF being validated
> for 4.9." Who is doing the validating?
Flex 4.9 uses a new version of TLF than Flex 4.8/4.6 did. Validation is that
existing mustella tests pass.
Thanks,
Justin
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> I would prefer not to have to go through the process of releasing a 4.8.1.
> I think 4.9 and its installer will generate enough RC's and release voting.
>
>
In that case, the option is for installer v.2 to support both workflows.
It will take
I would prefer not to have to go through the process of releasing a 4.8.1.
I think 4.9 and its installer will generate enough RC's and release voting.
A 4.8.1 would require at minimum some sanity checks that the version of TLF
we embed with it works and is the same as the one Adobe shipped. There
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand the plan. There are plenty of Adobe dependencies
> even in 4.9.
>
>
The suggestion is that Installer v.2 would support Flex 4.8.1 and 4.9
Flex 4.8.1 would just be Flex 4.8 + TLF
Flex 4.9 would not change.
This way,
I'm not sure I understand the plan. There are plenty of Adobe dependencies
even in 4.9.
On 12/11/12 5:26 PM, "Om" wrote:
> I kind of like this idea. But is this something folks want to do?
>
> Should we take a poll on this?
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Hans | dotdotcommadot <
> h...
I kind of like this idea. But is this something folks want to do?
Should we take a poll on this?
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Hans | dotdotcommadot <
h...@dotdotcommadot.com> wrote:
> In my opinion we should be able to download all SDK's from the installer.
>
> And to be completely independ
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I thought we had agreed to go with Greg's plan [1]. Then we won't need
> IPMC
> > approval, the name won't have "incubating" in the title and the bits can
> go
> > in its final URL on the TLP dist server.
> For now I'll put out rel
Hi,
> I thought we had agreed to go with Greg's plan [1]. Then we won't need IPMC
> approval, the name won't have "incubating" in the title and the bits can go
> in its final URL on the TLP dist server.
For now I'll put out release candidates with incubating (as that's accurate) as
soon as we're
On 12/11/12 2:36 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Did we decide we are going to try to release this right after we (hopefully)
>> become a top-level-project?
> As we currently incubating I'm not sure we can do that. Plus not sure how long
> it will take to sort out the infrastructure cha
Hi,
> Exactly my point. Should Installer v.2 support both Flex 4.8 and 4.9 or
> just 4.9?
IMO just support 4.9, if you want 4.8 you can use an older version of the
installer.
Thanks,
Justin
In my opinion we should be able to download all SDK's from the installer.
And to be completely independent from adobe stuff, we should be able to get the
entire SDK a full "apache" library, even in 2 years from now.
So i would go for the 4.8.1 release with embeddded TLF, no?
A clean solution that
Ok, not with TLF then :)
I will put up a list with possible features and changes hopefully this weekend,
in jira.
On 11 Dec 2012, at 23:40, Hans | dotdotcommadot wrote:
> I sure wouldn't mind helping with further development and concepting of the
> installer.
> I'm definitely up for it.
> I
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > As previously external components (ex. TLF) become internal to Apache
> > Flex, it is going to be quite hairy to get the licenses workflow going.
> > Any thoughts on this?
>
> TLF now doesn't require you to accept an license it's pa
I sure wouldn't mind helping with further development and concepting of the
installer.
I'm definitely up for it.
I do lack all knowledge on the entire legal part, so I will need someone
telling me what to do here, with stuff like TLF..
Hans
On 11 Dec 2012, at 23:21, Om wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11
Hi,
> As previously external components (ex. TLF) become internal to Apache
> Flex, it is going to be quite hairy to get the licenses workflow going.
> Any thoughts on this?
TLF now doesn't require you to accept an license it's part of the Flex
SDK/licensed under Apache.
Thanks,
Justin
Hi,
> Did we decide we are going to try to release this right after we (hopefully)
> become a top-level-project?
As we currently incubating I'm not sure we can do that. Plus not sure how long
it will take to sort out the infrastructure changes after we're made a top
level project.
> It would b
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Carol Frampton wrote:
> Did we decide we are going to try to release this right after we
> (hopefully) become a top-level-project? If so we should remove the
> -incubating from the kit name now, remove the DISCLAIMER file and probably
> some other stuff.
>
> It w
Did we decide we are going to try to release this right after we
(hopefully) become a top-level-project? If so we should remove the
-incubating from the kit name now, remove the DISCLAIMER file and probably
some other stuff.
It would be highly desirable for the installer to release at the same ti
my build failed so I guessed what was wrong and checked the unzipped
directory and didn't see textLayout (and I saw it was excluded from the
source packaging).
I always unzip in my Downloads directory and build there so I'm not in my
normal development area (on purpose when checking out a kit).
C
Hi Carol,
> I just fixed that in the release4.9 branch.
Thanks for that. What concerns me is that I was able to build the source zip
with no errors. How did this show up or did you just notice that it was missing?
Justin
On 12/11/12 1 :15PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>
>
>
>On 12/10/12 9:21 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
>> HI,
>>
>>> The top-level build.xml has the basedir set to some folder on your
>>>computer.
>> Opps that change shouldn't of been checked in. I'll correct that.
>>
>On Windows (haven't tried Mac)
On 12/10/12 9:21 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
> HI,
>
>> The top-level build.xml has the basedir set to some folder on your computer.
> Opps that change shouldn't of been checked in. I'll correct that.
>
On Windows (haven't tried Mac) the build failed because it there was no
textLayout folder
The source kit is missing the textLayout directory so it doesn't build
(aside from the basedir issue).
Carol
On 12/10/12 9 :17PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>This is a just a test release to see that it been packaged, signed and
>everything is where it should be and signed correctly. I'd ap
On 12/10/12 9 :17PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>This is a just a test release to see that it been packaged, signed and
>everything is where it should be and signed correctly. I'd appreciate if
>someone can take a look and give me some feedback.
>
>Note that this test release has not been t
On 12/10/12 9:24 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> The top-level build.xml has the basedir set to some folder on your computer.
> The checked in file is correct, but the file build on machine isn't, this was
> to get around spaces in paths and issues with the ant unzip task. I'll have to
Hi,
> The top-level build.xml has the basedir set to some folder on your computer.
The checked in file is correct, but the file build on machine isn't, this was
to get around spaces in paths and issues with the ant unzip task. I'll have to
come up with another way of fixing that.
Thanks,
Justin
HI,
> The top-level build.xml has the basedir set to some folder on your computer.
Opps that change shouldn't of been checked in. I'll correct that.
Thanks,
Justin
The top-level build.xml has the basedir set to some folder on your computer.
I set it to "." and am building.
On 12/10/12 8:57 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> BTW I did check the MD5 hashes, PGP signatures and the checkin tests passed -
> which is a good start.
>
> I think the README in
Hi,
BTW I did check the MD5 hashes, PGP signatures and the checkin tests passed -
which is a good start.
I think the README instructions may need updating. An "ant main" works but
there's no notes of how to use the src distribution in any of the IDEs (Use
scripts in ide/flashbuilder/?) via the
Hi,
> Mind if I take a stab at fixing some awkward wording in the readme?
Not at all - feel free to modify the version in the release branch.
Thanks,
Justin
Sorry -- misfire on the auto correct--- That was to say Carol, not
Carroll.
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski wrote:
> I know Carroll has battled the issue with the README for a while.
>
> Mind if I take a stab at fixing some awkward wording in the readme? Some
> of the ref
I know Carroll has battled the issue with the README for a while.
Mind if I take a stab at fixing some awkward wording in the readme? Some
of the references to the previous versions are confusing how they are
written today.
-Nick
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
Hi,
This is a just a test release to see that it been packaged, signed and
everything is where it should be and signed correctly. I'd appreciate if
someone can take a look and give me some feedback.
Note that this test release has not been tagged and the full Mustella tests
have not been run.
54 matches
Mail list logo