Mailing-List: contact dev-help@flex.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@flex.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of maurice.amsellem@systar.com
 designates 66.129.85.153 as permitted sender)
From: Maurice Amsellem <maurice.amsellem@systar.com>
To: "dev@flex.apache.org" <dev@flex.apache.org>
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex PixelBender Package 1.0
 (RC2)
Thread-Topic: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex PixelBender Package 1.0
 (RC2)
Thread-Index: 
 AQHO+356VQWMilRpd0ilrheu93AJ25pZBpmQgABbJACAADEPUIAAxz4A//+u2BCAAHjpgP//sSGwgACcXwD//7lagA==
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 22:43:05 +0000
Message-ID: 
 <2095F5EBE04D59409DFCE91FFCEBF7AF3F55BB33@EXMBX05.netplexity.local>
References: <CED5CDDB.14E32%aharui@adobe.com>
 <CED5CF7A.14E4D%aharui@adobe.com>
 <21EC33AA-07A9-4696-8E36-2D24C4CA43DC@classsoftware.com>
 <CED6121D.150C8%aharui@adobe.com>
 <A02D8931-4B3C-4E78-9FCE-403CE4F7A4A6@classsoftware.com>
 <2095F5EBE04D59409DFCE91FFCEBF7AF3F55AD50@EXMBX05.netplexity.local>
 <CED62230.15171%aharui@adobe.com>
 <2095F5EBE04D59409DFCE91FFCEBF7AF3F55AF1B@EXMBX05.netplexity.local>
 <CED6F269.154F7%aharui@adobe.com>
 <2095F5EBE04D59409DFCE91FFCEBF7AF3F55B6BC@EXMBX05.netplexity.local>
 <CED7127B.15681%aharui@adobe.com>
 <2095F5EBE04D59409DFCE91FFCEBF7AF3F55B97A@EXMBX05.netplexity.local>
 <CED753F2.1577B%aharui@adobe.com>
In-Reply-To: <CED753F2.1577B%aharui@adobe.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Justin is right,  anyway I didn't have the intention to veto the release ;-=
)

First of all, thanks Alex for the consideration you give to my position, gi=
ven that I am a newcomer to the team.

If you think that #1 (leave the files in place) is good solution, then go f=
or it.

I just would look to precise how I understand it would work, and tell me if=
 you agree:

File organization:
- PBK files stay where they are, in the current flex-sdk git repo
- There is a specific target eg. "build-pixel-bender-release" in the build.=
xml that builds the PBJ release:
	- compiles the PBK =3D> PBJ
	- makes a zip file of the PBJ and maybe other file (LICENCE, README, etc..=
.)
Note: This special target does not need to be called when building flex-sdk=
)

Process to build the PB release (including manual tasks):
- the "PB release builder" checks out the whole flex-sdk repo on his PC
- calls the target "build-pixel-bender-release"=20
- copies/commits the resulting zip to dist/...
- calls for voting of the release.
Note: this is open-source, so anyone who would want re-build the PB release=
 would also call this target,

Manual or Jenkins FLEX-SDK build:
- sdk build.xml includes a new task/target to download/unzip the PB release=
 (including the PBJ) from dist and copy them to the right place.

Is that OK? Did I miss something?

Maurice=20

-----Message d'origine-----
De=A0: Alex Harui [mailto:aharui@adobe.com]=20
Envoy=E9=A0: mercredi 18 d=E9cembre 2013 22:37
=C0=A0: dev@flex.apache.org
Objet=A0: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex PixelBender Package 1.0=
 (RC2)


On 12/18/13 9:48 AM, "Maurice Amsellem" <maurice.amsellem@systar.com>
wrote:

>>
>>Well, I am making it a separate package.  The question is whether you=20
>>think we should also move this code out of the flex-sdk repo.
>What does  "separate package inside the flex-sdk" mean?
>is that a distinct and autonomous directory inside the flex-sdk repo,=20
>much like "mustella" or "modules" ?
>If it's that, then yes, that should be fine, as far as there is no=20
>direct dependency on the flex sdk build.
Currently the files are where they have always been.  All I did was modify =
some build scripts.  Looks like there are at least 3 options:

1) leave the files in place
2) move the files to a new folder in flex-sdk repo
3) move the files to flex-utilities

Doing #1 appears to be the least work, but if you are going to veto the rel=
ease then I need to find some other configuration that will make you happy.

>
>>Another thing to consider:  What if the PB compiler stops working on=20
>>Windows or Mac someday due to an OS incompatibility?  When we don't=20
>>own the tools and the tools are not under active development, we run a ri=
sk.
>>Who knows when Adobe would respond.  I think PB compiler was last=20
>>shipped in Creative Suite 5.5.
>Yes, that's a possibility.
>Maybe another way of looking at it would be to consider not the support=20
>for pixel-bender compiler, but rather the support of *PB inside the=20
>FlashPlayer*.
>So all the time Adobe supports PB shaders, we will have our=20
>"voted/validated" release of pre-compiled PBJ, that will not evolve,=20
>and that we can continue shipping and its guaranteed to work.
>Simply consider them as "frozen legacy Adobe stuff", which it is=20
>already de-facto.
Remember, we are an open-SOURCE project so everything we do needs compilati=
on or interpretation.  An official Apache release contains source code and =
instructions to build it and that sort of implies that the tools work.

-Alex