flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Date Wed, 02 Jan 2013 07:23:39 GMT

On 1/1/13 11:09 PM, "Om" <bigosmallm@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 1, 2013 10:42 PM, "Alex Harui" <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>> Ok, here is my logic:
>> -From [1], a release is "anything that is published beyond the group that
>> owns it.".  Putting the config.xml on the site to be consumed by one of
> our
>> binaries makes it part of a release and requires a vote before it happens.
> I still don't agree with this logic.  The config xml is placed on our
> website which is completely under our control.  Which means that we don't
> really 'release' it.
We are taking something from SVN and consuming it in a binary distribution
that we've deployed to our site and telling the world to use it.

Believe me, I've puzzled over why other web-site changes aren't also
considered 'releases' and need voting.  I think it is because there is no
code involved.  But in this case, there is code involved, whether it is the
installer launched from our web-page or by the user downloading the

But I would love to be overruled by the mentors or board.  I am taking the
most conservative read of the policy because I see that as the safest play
for now.  I know it is delaying things, but all of us PMC members have a
priority to make sure we are following Apache policy.
> We don't 'release' the installer badge, but it consumes the same exact
> config xml.  Are you saying that we need to release the source for the
> badge as well?
IMO, absolutely.  Did we not do this in the prior version?  Then we really
messed up that release.  I thought the same source created the badge
installer, but it got packaged differently before posting on the site.

Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.

View raw message