incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject RE: FalcoJs
Date Sat, 05 May 2012 04:39:10 GMT
I have to disagree about the no control part.  Mustella got partially in this week because
some of you wanted it done that way. I could drop the rest of mustella and start scrubbing
the falcon js code but I thought we agreed that a verification suite was more important.

Btw, no need to have sympathy for Adobe communications.

Sent from my Motorola ATRIX™ 4G on AT&T


-----Original message-----
From: "Michael A. Labriola" <labriola@digitalprimates.net>
To: "flex-dev@incubator.apache.org" <flex-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Sent: Sat, May 5, 2012 01:42:35 GMT+00:00
Subject: RE: FalcoJs

>:) True, my wording was too harsh for sure, I retract "100%". But my point was that the
blog post wording originally was such that it very much made it sound like FalconJS was going
to live or die based solely on >Apache Flex team, whereas in reality at this point in time
only Adobe has anything at all to do with FalconJS ever seeing the light of day. And the updated
wording still partially sounded the same.

Well, if Doug is too harsh then let me say it this way. Apache Flex has NO control over this.
Unless the code is sitting in your inbox Alex and you have decided not to commit it yet, then
we have absolutely nothing to do with it and Adobe should make that clear.

> This is a developer's blog.  It is not an official statement.
>>For better or worse, that blog post is the first link on google when searching for
FalconJS, and I can't find anything more official from Adobe, and Adobe is still in control
of the code. I'd say that's as official a source as >>there is, and it's more official
than anything posted on an Apache Flex wiki until the code actually lives in Apache Flex.

Yeh all my sympathy for Adobe mea culpa communication is gone for some reason. Developer blog
or not, this under the Adobe banner and it is Adobe communication as such. That post indicates
that Apache has control of something it does not. It's a misrepresentation of the truth and
effectively makes it look like Apache has control of something it does not.
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message