Mailing-List: contact flex-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of omuppi1@gmail.com designates
 74.125.82.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: omuppi1@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CD09207B.4ABFE%aharui@adobe.com>
References: 
 <CACK5iZcd5-FCb7GDw=-OmzCUuLQ-C=4hcW9Fc7mUtgEG1x69qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CD09207B.4ABFE%aharui@adobe.com>
From: Om <bigosmallm@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 11:02:44 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CACK5iZddGsedq1=pGr+QStFgig5Kjgh_n3A=oXKy9qP5pzOADQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d041826c802a55904d252e693

--f46d041826c802a55904d252e693
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

>

> > 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.
>
>
We discussed this in the past and decided not to officially release the
badge.  It was also decided to include a link to this disclaimer [1] in the
badge


[1] http://incubator.apache.org/flex/installerbadge/disclaimer.html

--f46d041826c802a55904d252e693--