Mailing-List: contact flex-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of aharui@adobe.com designates
 64.18.1.35 as permitted sender)
From: Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com>
To: "flex-dev@incubator.apache.org" <flex-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 07:09:10 -0800
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] APACHE FLEX 4.9 RC6
Thread-Topic: [DISCUSS][VOTE] APACHE FLEX 4.9 RC6
Thread-Index: Ac3g83MgbozGNoSqSO2yUv134A+9fwALAKrQ
Message-ID: <CCFC5E96.4A795%aharui@adobe.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CACK5iZduKJnHYOWtZ0c-6Kq8xBPyn_y5185WOrBGvEQ7_yZW6w@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/13.13.0.120411
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Some packages.dita files appear to be checked into SVN.  So not all seem to
be generated.  And the ones not generated need headers.  That's is a pretty
clear rule from Apache.

So, at some point today, one of needs to figure out:
1) Are they all generated and thus none should be in SVN?
2) If generated, then clean before RAT or exclude from RAT
3) If not generated, add headers or exclude from RAT.

Basically, we need to tweak something so that RAT is clean.  And that tweak
will likely force a new RC.  And I'm still pondering why it didn't show up
on the first run.  I think I ran release twice without running main in
between so maybe that didn't clean something?

What do you get when you run RAT?  If it is a bug because I ran it twice,
then maybe we can ignore, but the missing header in ErrorArray.as that I
fixed last night forces an RC7, unfortunately.


On 12/23/12 1:53 AM, "Om" <bigosmallm@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 23, 2012 1:12 AM, "Justin Mclean" <justin@classsoftware.com> wrote=
:
>>=20
>> Hi,
>>=20
>>> Rat-check failed with two issues.  I'm fixing that now and running rat
> again
>>> (takes about an hour).  I also fixed a minor issue in the README since
> we're
>>> going to have to re-kit again.
>>=20
>> It does look like it related to as_docs, at a guess the en_US locale is
> hard coded in the clean and that may be causing an issue. You didn't happ=
en
> to compile for another locale did you? I think in that case these file
> would be left about if you compiled for en_US then another locale.
>>=20
>> Do you really think this is an issue that should stop a release? They ar=
e
> 2 generated XML files, they are not in source control regenerating the
> asdocs will create them.
>=20
> Generated files can be excluded from the rat report.
>=20
> But if we are going to sign the asdoc package,  then any changes to the
> package has to be signed again which works need a new RC.
>=20
> Thanks,
> Om
>=20
>>=20
>> Thanks,
>> Justin

--=20
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui