incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chema Balsas <jbal...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1418709 - in /incubator/flex/sdk/branches/develop/frameworks/projects: rpc/build.xml spark/build.xml spark_dmv/build.xml
Date Mon, 10 Dec 2012 21:28:35 GMT
Oh, ok. That hasn't been changed. If I got that right, the release script
is generating the build.number based on the current svn revision and then
injecting it to the ant target with -Dbuild.number.

The only change we added here was avoiding to include a file with that
number in three of the generated swcs, but build.number is still generated
and used anywhere else as it was before.

Hope this clarifies it then.

2012/12/10 Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com>

> I think Justin was worried about the RSL names when creating an RC.  How do
> the RSLs get their names? Doesn't the TLF RSL have a different version
> appended to its name?  Don't the other RSLs go from having a .0.0.0 to some
> actual version?
>
>
> On 12/10/12 1:07 PM, "Carol Frampton" <cframpto@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> > As far as I know the sdk build isn't using the build.number files (the
> > installer has one which is being used).  build.number is a "magic" file
> > which the ant build number task uses.
> >
> > There is a build.number property in the top-level build.properties file
> > which is overridden with the svn rev for release builds with
> > -Dbuild.number=<svn last changed rev> on the command line of the build.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > On 12/10/12 3 :44PM, "Chema Balsas" <jbalsas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I did a full mustella run over the weekend (it takes my computer over 12
> >> hours...). In an initial pass, I got about 70 errors or so with the swcs
> >> not including version.properties. Then I reverted the changes and run
> the
> >> mustella on the failures getting the same errors, the changes don't seem
> >> to
> >> introduce any new errors.
> >>
> >> @Justin Since you were the one to raise concerns about this, does this
> >> look
> >> good to you?
> >>
> >> To wrap it up, in the other thread Gordon said:
> >>
> >> I think Adobe's build machines had some scripts that set build.number to
> >>> the Perforce revision number that it was building.
> >>
> >>
> >> I assumed this was being used to keep track of the released versions of
> >> some swcs. Can someone on Adobe confirm or further comment on this? What
> >> strikes me as odd is that only those 3 swcs were including this file. Is
> >> there some explanation for this, or is this maybe just some code left
> from
> >> the donation process?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Chema
> >>
> >> 2012/12/8 Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com>
> >>
> >>> There was a discussion in another thread. Maybe I misunderstood. Anyway
> >>> develop branch was broken.  Release branch doesn't have this problem.
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my Motorola ATRIX  4G on AT&T
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original message-----
> >>> From: Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com>
> >>> To: "flex-dev@incubator.apache.org" <flex-dev@incubator.apache.org>
> >>> Sent: Sat, Dec 8, 2012 17:33:55 GMT+00:00
> >>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1418709 - in
> >>> /incubator/flex/sdk/branches/develop/frameworks/projects: rpc/build.xml
> >>> spark/build.xml spark_dmv/build.xml
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>>> Remove version.properties include-file directive from rpc, spark and
> >>> spark_dmv as conflicts with compile-config.xml and is currently unused
> >>> You might want to double check that it not used in the release build. I
> >>> think that the version number is used when generating the RSLs.
> >>>
> >>> Justin
> >>>
> >
>
> --
> Alex Harui
> Flex SDK Team
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>
>

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