flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: Attention: another possible show stopper, please verify
Date Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:40:38 GMT
I found the offending code in an FB class.  It is using a single \d for
the version parsing.  I wonder what it would take to patch it?


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
>-----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?
>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
>>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
>>> 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
>>> good and attract more people, especially if we can find a way around
>>> and shipping with known regressions doesn't help either.  Very
>>> OpenOffice also voted to release and was in the process of copying
>>> bits to dist when they stopped because an issue was found.  Just
>>> 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:
>>>>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
>>>>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
>>>>release manager I'm willing to give a couple of days grace to see if
>>>>solutions for any "outstanding" issues can be found and consider
>>>>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.

View raw message