incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Om <bigosma...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Test Release of Apache Flex 4.9
Date Wed, 12 Dec 2012 02:14:00 GMT
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:

> I would prefer not to have to go through the process of releasing a 4.8.1.
> I think 4.9 and its installer will generate enough RC's and release voting.
>
>
In that case, the option is for installer v.2 to support both workflows.
 It will take time to implement, but should be worth the wait.


> A 4.8.1 would require at minimum some sanity checks that the version of TLF
> we embed with it works and is the same as the one Adobe shipped.  There is
> a
> newer version of TLF being validated for 4.9.
>
>
Not sure what you mean by "There is a newer version of TLF being validated
for 4.9."  Who is doing the validating?


>
> On 12/11/12 6:03 PM, "Om" <bigosmallm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not sure I understand the plan.  There are plenty of Adobe
> dependencies
> >> even in 4.9.
> >>
> >>
> > The suggestion is that Installer v.2 would support Flex 4.8.1 and 4.9
> >
> > Flex 4.8.1 would just be Flex 4.8 + TLF
> >
> > Flex 4.9 would not change.
> >
> > This way, anyone who wants to download Flex 4.8 would need installer v.1
> > Anyone who uses installer v.2 can chose between Flex 4.8.1 and Flex 4.9
> >
> > This way, we remove the code to download TLF from Adobe.  This makes life
> > easier for us because we dont have to maintain two different flows in the
> > installer.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> On 12/11/12 5:26 PM, "Om" <bigosmallm@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I kind of like this idea.  But is this something folks want to do?
> >>>
> >>> Should we take a poll on this?
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Hans | dotdotcommadot <
> >>> hans@dotdotcommadot.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In my opinion we should be able to download all SDK's from the
> >> installer.
> >>>>
> >>>> And to be completely independent from adobe stuff, we should be able
> to
> >>>> get the entire SDK a full "apache" library, even in 2 years from now.
> >>>> So i would go for the 4.8.1 release with embeddded TLF, no?
> >>>> A clean solution that will last a while.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 11 Dec 2012, at 23:42, Om <bigosmallm@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Justin Mclean <
> >> justin@classsoftware.com
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As previously external components (ex. TLF) become internal
to
> Apache
> >>>>>>> Flex, it is going to be quite hairy to get the licenses
workflow
> >> going.
> >>>>>>> Any thoughts on this?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> TLF now doesn't require you to accept an license it's part of
the
> Flex
> >>>>>> SDK/licensed under Apache.
> >>>>> Exactly my point.  Should Installer v.2 support both Flex 4.8 and
4.9
> >> or
> >>>>> just 4.9?
> >>>>> If we want to support both in the same installer app, then it means
> >>>> quite a
> >>>>> bit of work to ensure that workflows are supported (one with external
> >>>>> loading of TLF, one without).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Or do we want to create a 4.8.1 version with TLF baked into it?
 Then
> >>>> there
> >>>>> is no need for external loading of TLF and we can do away with that
> >> piece
> >>>>> completely.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I raised these issues earlier, but I guess it got buried somewhere.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> Justin
> >>>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Alex Harui
> >> Flex SDK Team
> >> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> >> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
> >>
> >>
>
> --
> Alex Harui
> Flex SDK Team
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>
>

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