flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Convenience Binary Policy
Date Fri, 24 Oct 2014 00:23:02 GMT
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com>

> Hi,
> > The problem was not with the dependency per se. It was with getting
> JBurg onto the user’s machine.
> Which is done by code in the FlexJS release not the installer (it
> installer.xml file). The installer installs other Apache products ie the
> Flex SDK which don't have a dependancy on JBerg and don't have this issue.
> > If the installer was not “officially Apache”, we would not have needed
> any of the discussion we had.
> Yes it still would of happened as Alex wanted to modify the FlexJS binary
> hosted at Apache without a vote. If the Flex JS Binary was external to
> Apache then probably not but we would still need to be a discussion around
> is it OK to have a blessed installer installing non blessed artefacts. If
> both the Flex JS Binary and Installer was external then sure but then they
> might as well be a fork and not part of Apache at all.
> There are still good reason for hosting convenience binaries at Apache:
> - User trust - they are produced at the same time from the source release
> and hosted at Apache
> - Infrastructure - bandwidth, security, mirrors etc
> - Simple to make release as both source and binary are checked in at the
> same time in the same place
> - The official release process encourages people to check what we're
> releasing 3 +1 votes and all that
> > This all seems very much in line with the official Apache policy that
> only source is a release anyway. Since Apache doesn’t want responsibility
> for installers and everything related (i.e. binary dependencies etc.), the
> simplest solution is to keep that separation.
> At no point has ever said that Apache doesn't want responsibility for
> installers, the installer consists of source code just like any other
> Apache project, so not sure where you are getting that from. All Apache
> project have some means of installing and while that is usually maven or
> ant other projects do have installers as well (eg Open Office)
> So if I understand you correctly in order to not vote on stuff we want
> move both the Installer and FlexJS outside of Apache? That's basically a
> fork.
I don't think this qualifies as a fork, but you can call it that if you
like.  Also, we have moved our committer whiteboards to Github in the past.


> Thanks,
> Justin

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message