flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex PixelBender Package 1.0 (RC2)
Date Tue, 17 Dec 2013 23:19:15 GMT
Hi,

> OK.  Good point about the overlay of the notice files.  I'll add an ant
> target to copy just the pbk/pbj.
That would be required for the CI anyway wouldn't it?

> The goal was to not move the PBK files out to a different repo and
> instead, package a subset of the flex-sdk repo.
Can we actually do that ie does it follow Apache release guidelines? I'm not sure. Does that
mean we also need to vote on a release a version of pixel bender when making a new SDK release?

>  Do you think everything on this list is required?
Not everything, It is expected that someone can take the source release and compile it and
verify it to what's in version control.

> 1) can we tell folks in the RELEASE_NOTES not to run release-pixelbender
> target and say that it is for extracting this package from a full flex-sdk
> repo?
We can say what we want in RELEASE_NOTE/README. But it seem odd to me that you need the full
Flex SDK is required just to make a release of pixel bender. What do other people think?

> 2) can we say that the LICENSE file contains extra licenses that may only
> apply to the full repo?
I would assume that LICENSE/NOTICE file needs to refer to the actual release (and any upstream
projects) they are in not any downstream projects. The Apache licence make reference to the
NOTICE file so we would need to legally comply with that.

> 3) can we say that the build.xml and properties files reference the full
> flex-sdk build?
Does this mean we need to make a new PB release every time they change?

> 4) can we say that the clean target doesn't work?
I think it would be expected that it should work.

Thanks,
Justin
Mime
View raw message