Mailing-List: contact flex-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEWfVJmNwgu3S4i6srPSMMWn6bwZFrR-1KkcFGg4ibJOUWW0RQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CACK5iZeyezdX_Mpwzig2RDYWBEoQiBO-cBimnaixyPFxS_m+jw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEWfVJmWxswFMWUzACP_VwWsWmm3u6yy_ZyeNnd+C98MwWYceQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJs+wW35-avC6m9+vGV=OwPmj+bXE+JZCy8uTGtutg7AG3_fJw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEWfVJmNwgu3S4i6srPSMMWn6bwZFrR-1KkcFGg4ibJOUWW0RQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 09:47:10 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CAJs+wW3ZUSeWB8YN3qf=LyFjXwhVJfyD4EpS2C0+8OXwOuv2Cg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release InstallApacheFlex 1.0 - RC5
From: Erik de Bruin <erik@ixsoftware.nl>
To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

This is starting to feel like the never-ending [VOTE] :( Are all
releases going to be like this, or will it get better (smoother, less
frustrating) later on?

I've taken a few deep breaths and re-read all comments on this.
Although I honestly feel that adding another dialog to the program
will do nothing to educate the user - after all, who really reads
them, you click OK and get on with what you came to the installer for,
downloading the SDK - I see the legal reasoning behind it and agree,
reluctantly, that it should be included in the software.

Om, if feel an RC6 (!) coming up in the near future. If you are
willing and able to include the dialog in the app, please do. I'll be
out until the middle of next week. If not done by then, I'll take care
of it and of FLEX-33209, which, since we're cutting yet another
release, we might as well include.

EdB


On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Erik,
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Erik de Bruin <erik@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>> ...Thank you for your feedback. In the spirit of your remarks I have
>> added a paragraph "Note: ..." to the installer download page [1]. I
>> also added language similar to that note to the disclaimer page [2]...
>
> I wouldn't duplicate the info at [2], rather point to [1] as
> additional info about binaries.
>
> I also don't think the info at [1] is sufficient, it should include
> the notion that the binaries (IIUC) are not checked by the installer,
> and users installing at their own risk.
>
>> In version 1.1 we plan to address this in the application itself...
>
> I have created FLEX-33210 for now, affecting this release for now.
> Personally I'm don't think it's good to let the installer out without
> this warning - IIUC the use case is that people will see the installer
> badge somewhere, click on it and probably not read [1], so IMO a
> warning inside the installer is required if you want to be serious
> about this.
>
> What do others think?
>
>> ...Also, I agree the language in the README should be corrected, but I
>> don't see the current remark as a showstopper. We will also address
>> this in version 1.1. The issue is recorded in FLEX-33209....
>
> Agreed.
>
> -Bertrand
>
>> 1: http://incubator.apache.org/flex/installer.html
>> 2: http://incubator.apache.org/flex/about-binaries.html


-- 
Ix Multimedia Software

Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht

T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl