flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "aYo ~" <...@binitie.com>
Subject Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
Date Fri, 26 Jul 2013 23:34:13 GMT
Ok here's the feedback on FDT5 Linux. I did not bother with 4.10.0 as that
is not released yet. I wanted to be certain that the layout attribute was
not causing problems as it is a released version

1. With SDK 4.9.0 I get a java null pointer error - I tried to work around
this error using the FDT suggested method of changing the version in the
flex sdk configuration xml but I was not successful. Ca na marche pas :(.

2. With SDK 4.6 which I used as a control I found that the web project
would not compile with the s:Application attribute layout="absolute". If
you took that out it compiled fine. Perhaps this bug has been there a lot
longer than it seems.

aYo
www.ayobinitie.com
mrbinitie.blogspot.com
On 26 Jul 2013 22:50, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosmallm@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> > I found the offending code in an FB class.  It is using a single \d for
> > the version parsing.
>
>
> Can you please elaborate about the version parsing bug in FB?
>
>
> > I wonder what it would take to patch it?
> >
> >
> Who is this question targeted towards?  Adobe FlashBuilder team or Apache
> Flex team?
>
> Would FlashBuilder team be willing to push out a patch just to support
> Apache Flex 4.10?  Or is it possible to solve the problem by calling our
> release 5.0.0 (just asking)
>
> And do we know if the other IDEs dont have this same problem?  Anyone tried
> it out on FDT, IntelliJ, FlashDevelop, etc.?
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 7/26/13 8:45 AM, "Frédéric Thomas" <webdoublefx@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Oups, I meant when the build number is 0
> > >
> > >-----Message d'origine-----
> > >From: Frédéric Thomas
> > >Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 5:40 PM
> > >To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > >Subject: Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
> > >
> > >> But I wonder if the version element is used elsewhere?
> > >
> > >Just for info, it is used by the mavenizer too but there is no issues,
> > >tested it time ago with 4.10.x
> > >One particularity is with x == 0, it generates 4.10.0-SNAPSHOT instead
> of
> > >the classic 4.10.x which is useful when you want to mavenize the develop
> > >branch and it is well taken in account by IntelliJ
> > >
> > >-Fred
> > >
> > >-----Message d'origine-----
> > >From: Alex Harui
> > >Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 5:24 PM
> > >To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > >Subject: Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
> > >
> > >Ugh.  Thanks for checking it out.
> > >
> > >So the SDK name still showed up as 4.10?  I suppose we could just leave
> > >the version element at 4.9.9 with a comment saying we had to do that for
> > >FB.  But I wonder if the version element is used elsewhere?
> > >
> > >-Alex
> > >
> > >On 7/26/13 7:52 AM, "Cyrill Zadra" <cyrill.zadra@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>With following steps I could create new flash builder projects again
> > >>with no errors.
> > >>
> > >>1) Changed <version> element in flex-sdk-description.xml from 4.10.0
to
> > >>4.9.0
> > >>2) Configure SDK in Flash Builder
> > >>3) Create new Project with newly configured SDK
> > >>
> > >>My sdk was installed with Apache Flex Installer. So I would say the
> > >>problem ist the version number.
> > >>
> > >>On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
> > >>> In one of the past releases, we messed up the core.swc build script
> and
> > >>> didn't catch it until after release.  It seems like we should make
> sure
> > >>> this is in fact a bug in FB and not some other thing we messed up
> that
> > >>>is
> > >>> under our control before releasing.  So somebody should try a build
> > >>>with a
> > >>> 4.9.9 version number just to be sure.  I'll see if I can get another
> > >>> computer going on it.
> > >>>
> > >>> Clearly we all have different opinions on quality, but a problem in
> the
> > >>> first thing a newbie tries with FB New Project wouldn't make us look
> > >>>very
> > >>> good and attract more people, especially if we can find a way around
> > >>>it,
> > >>> and shipping with known regressions doesn't help either.  Very
> > >>>recently,
> > >>> OpenOffice also voted to release and was in the process of copying
> > >>>their
> > >>> bits to dist when they stopped because an issue was found.  Just
> > >>>because
> > >>> you have the votes doesn't mean you have to deploy those bits.
> > >>>
> > >>> -Alex
> > >>>
> > >>> On 7/26/13 7:00 AM, "Justin Mclean" <justin@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>Hi,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>And I really have to say this is not exactly a show stopper or
> critical
> > >>>>issue. This need to put into perspective as there a very simple
work
> > >>>>around eg just fix/edit the code yourself. It's an inconvenience
at
> > >>>>most,
> > >>>>nothing to do with the SDK itself, and not everyone uses Flash
> Builder.
> > >>>>I'm not sure we can ever fix the issue, without revering the version
> > >>>>number to 4.9.2 or something silly. We should be asking Adobe to
fix
> it
> > >>>>not using it as yet another excuse to not make a release.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>The vote for the release candidates has passed and was successful.
As
> > >>>>the
> > >>>>release manager I'm willing to give a couple of days grace to see
if
> > >>>>any
> > >>>>solutions for any "outstanding" issues can be found and consider
> > >>>>creating
> > >>>>a new release candidate to put up for another vote, but beyond they
> can
> > >>>>go into the next point release, anything more than that is really
> going
> > >>>>against Apache policy.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Thanks,
> > >>>>Justin
> > >>>
> > >
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message