flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
Subject AW: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
Date Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:02:08 GMT
As we noticed with FlexUnit that simply releasing Maven artifacts of a previously released
library isn't that easy (From Apache procedures ... the releasing itself is easy), I think
we should think about releasing the maven artifacts together with the normal release.


Von: omuppi1@gmail.com <omuppi1@gmail.com> im Auftrag von OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosmallm@gmail.com>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. August 2014 09:55
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0

MD5 and signature looks good.
Compiles fine

I see some issues:

1.  There are two README files, one here [1] and one under the 'main'
directory after unzipping the src/binary kit.  We should merge those two,
to avoid confusion.
 2.  LICENSE file is incomplete (there is a TODO section in there)
3.  I still see the 'Adobe' name in package names, ex.
SpellingUI/src/com/adobe ...
I thought this was fixed?  Was the RC made before this fix?
4.  The genTextWordlist.sh script under main/Data does not work.  Throws
this error:

$ ./genTextWordlist.sh
cat: squigglyWordlist/*: No such file or directory

5.  The apps under main/Demo/ does not seem to work


[1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/squiggly/1.0/rc0/README

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 11:59 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:

> When I was prepping the donation, I was thinking we'd send folks to
> Hunspell to get their dictionaries.  We could provide links, or maybe the
> ant script can offer to fetch one (with notification of license
> differences first).
> BTW, I ran out of time tonight to look at the RC.  I'll look in my morning
> and should have info by the time I normally see your first emails.
> -Alex
> On 8/27/14 9:21 PM, "Justin Mclean" <justin@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >While not a blocker, the main inconvenience I see with the current RC is
> >that is requirement the user to source a dictionary, as none were
> >provided in Adobe's donation. While it easy enough to take one from
> >Adobe's version of Squiggly that's not exactly optimal.  What can we do
> >about this? Obvious at the very least we need to add it to the
> >
> >Does anyone know what Open Office does? I think they use (perhaps use to
> >use?) the same dictionary format.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Justin

View raw message