flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: AW: Missing BlazeDS repo on the sources page
Date Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:27:42 GMT
Pretty sure that SNAPSHOTs have been ruled as equivalent to nightly builds
so we're probably ok.

What jars are in the repo?  We should not have binaries in the repos.


On 7/31/14 5:42 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:

>Geee ... I already thought I might have mis-expressed myself.
>I didn't setup the build to "release" anything in a software release
>manner. I have setup the job to publish SNAPSHOT versions of BlazeDS (I
>did manage to deploy a first set of snapshots manually, but now it's
>happening automatically).
>This ist he usual way software is developed using maven. Noone would use
>SNAPSHOT versions in public (Acutally you can't even release anything
>that relys on SNAPSHOT verisons). This is the way a work in progress is
>shipped to early adopters and I think it's a very good approach. And it's
>an approach allmost all other Apache projects go.
>If we took this even further and we published snapshot versions for all
>Flex sub-projects. People could start working with 4.14 while it is being
>developed and report back problems way before we have released a new
>version, just by changing 1.13.0 to 1.14-SNAPSHOT.
>-----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: Justin Mclean [mailto:justin@classsoftware.com]
>Gesendet: Donnerstag, 31. Juli 2014 13:10
>An: dev@flex.apache.org
>Betreff: Re: Missing BlazeDS repo on the sources page
>> It seems to be a work in progress, not a release.
>Agreed - that's why we shouldn't be making publicly available in the
>Apache repo.
>> You raise valid points that certainly need to be addressed before a
>> release is cut. But for now, we should be glad somebody is doing
>> actual work that helps us get closer to a version that is NOT Adobe;
>> we should help, rather than obstruct, his efforts.
>With my PMC hat on. Legal issues are important. it looks like we may be
>publishing 3rd party jars and all sort of other things that could get up
>into trouble, like for instance not having a LICENSE file. Please let
>hold off publishing it for now until we can give it a good looking over.
>There's no need to publicly publish this to work out and fix what those
>issues are, none of the issues I raised are a hinderance or obstruction
>to currently development.
>> Maybe you can have a look at the LICENSE and NOTICE files that would
>> be required, as that has become something of a specialty of yours?
>Currently I don't have the spare time, but other people are welcome to do
>so. In fact I'd prefer if someone else does it so they can gain
>experience at this task. I'm happy to help out and review when I can.

View raw message