On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> I understand the need of projects like OO to provide binaries of some sort,
> I just don't understand why do they have to be 'blessed' by ASF. Once
> source gets built and packaged a whole new set of issues kick in. I don't
> think the fo
+1
On Oct 23, 2014 11:11 AM, Sebastian Schelter wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On 10/22/2014 06:21 AM, Tomer Shiran wrote:
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > We wrapped up the vote on the Apache Drill dev list in which the community
> > expressed its desire to graduate to a top-level project. That vote passed
> >
On 23/10/2014 brane wrote:
On 22.10.2014 03:02, Justin Mclean wrote:
You may possibly be forgetting about Category B licensed
dependancies. These may only be included in binary form in an
Apache product. ...
I have trouble visualising how any ASF project could have
/mandatory/ dependencies on a
below,
-Original Message-
From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman
Shaposhnik
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 21:37
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Convenience Binary Policy
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 5:57 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On
in-line.
-Original Message-
From: br...@apache.org [mailto:br...@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 01:47
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Convenience Binary Policy
On 22.10.2014 03:02, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Binary dependencies are, by definition, not rel
I understand the resolution as follows:
Releases are for source only. The source can have a dependency on JBurg which
the user would download themselves if they are installing from source. I guess
we should include instructions to install from Source, so that’s an option for
users. But we’d inc
Hi,
> The easiest might be to host the Flex installer outside of Apache
> Flex, as a separate project where its contributors are free to do
> whatever.
I may be missing something here but I'm not sure that solves any issues. It's
not the installer than needed to be modified but what it what it w
Great!
I just created “flex-extras” and we’ll put in some appropriate text both on the
Github side and Apache Flex side. Hopefully this will prove to be a smooth
resolution.
Harbs
On Oct 23, 2014, at 1:22 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Harbs wrot
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Harbs wrote:
> ...What about a Github repository for “Flex Support” or “Flex Extensions”? We
> could build installers and
> host them there without “official blessings”
That's pretty much what I meant.
As for naming "Foo Extensions for Apache Flex" is
+1 (binding)
On 23 October 2014 01:30, Tomer Shiran wrote:
> I had the wrong link in here as well as non-Apache emails. Here's the
> correct information.
>
> Correct link to PPMC vote:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-drill-dev/201410.mbox/%3CCAJkA4MF%2B5tWRaoGiimpjB_ixbCQF
Here’s another idea along these lines:
What about a Github repository for “Flex Support” or “Flex Extensions”? We
could build installers and host them there without “official blessings”. Any
non Apache license compliant extensions (such as flexmojo) might go there as
well.
This might just be a
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Harbs wrote:
> JBurg can be installed manually by the end user, but the Flex community has
> tried to simplify
> the setup process by downloading JBurg by an installer script...
The easiest might be to host the Flex installer outside of Apache
Flex, as a se
Our situation is with JBurg.[1]
We have an ActionScript complier (called Falcon) which was donated along with
Flex by Adobe. The compilation has a dependency on JBurg to walk the tree.
One flavor of Flex (called FlexJS) is targeting Javascript and cross-compiling
ActionScript code to Javascript
+1
On 10/22/2014 06:21 AM, Tomer Shiran wrote:
Hi Everyone,
We wrapped up the vote on the Apache Drill dev list in which the community
expressed its desire to graduate to a top-level project. That vote passed
with 23 +1s (http://bit.ly/1tcrHVS) and 0 -1s (including the project's
mentors, PMC me
On 22.10.2014 03:02, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Binary dependencies are, by definition, not released by the ASF; because
>> we release source code. Also, software that has dependencies that are
>> only available in binary form is not open-source, in my book.
> You may possibly be forgetting ab
This all sounds very good to me and makes a lot of sense.
As newcomers to Apache, Flex has had a lot of confusion over what “should” and
“must” be done regarding releases. If these things would be spelled out more
explicitly, it would help current and future Apache projects get it right with
mi
Hi,
On Thursday, October 23, 2014, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> ...I understand the need of projects like OO to provide binaries of some
sort,
> I just don't understand why do they have to be 'blessed' by ASF. Once
> source gets built and packaged a whole new set of issues kick in. I don't
> think
17 matches
Mail list logo
