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] Discuss Release Apache Flex PixelBender Package 1.0 (RC2)
Date Tue, 17 Dec 2013 23:48:16 GMT


On 12/17/13 3:35 PM, "Maurice Amsellem" <maurice.amsellem@systar.com>
wrote:

>> The goal was to not move the PBK files out to a different repo and
>> instead, package a subset of the flex-sdk repo.
>
>Why can't it be on a different repo ?
It can.
>From our early discussion on the subject (see email thread "PixelBender
>and Builds.a.o"),  I understood that PBK sources were moved to a sub
>project in flex-utilities.
>Which means PBK sources and any reference to pixelbender should be
>completely removed from flex sdk.
>Morever, the pixel-bender project in flex-utilities was supposed to have
>its own build.xml.
>The result of the new pixel-bender build would be manually committed to
>dist svn repo (and voted for).
At the end of that discussion (around December 12), you talked me out of
putting it in a different repo.
>
>IMO, it would be much simpler to do it that way than "logically
>partitioning" the flex-sdk sources and build files.
Well, re-read the end of that thread and let me know where you stand.

>
>WDYT ?
>
>Maurice 
>
>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Justin Mclean [mailto:justin@classsoftware.com]
>Envoyé : mercredi 18 décembre 2013 00:19
>À : dev@flex.apache.org
>Objet : Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex PixelBender Package 1.0
>(RC2)
>
>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