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: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Date Wed, 02 Jan 2013 07:43:45 GMT



On 1/1/13 11:30 PM, "Om" <bigosmallm@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 1/1/13 11:09 PM, "Om" <bigosmallm@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Jan 1, 2013 10:42 PM, "Alex Harui" <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Ok, here is my logic:
>>>> 
>>>> -From [1], a release is "anything that is published beyond the group
>> that
>>>> owns it.".  Putting the config.xml on the site to be consumed by one of
>>> our
>>>> binaries makes it part of a release and requires a vote before it
>> happens.
>>> 
>>> I still don't agree with this logic.  The config xml is placed on our
>>> website which is completely under our control.  Which means that we don't
>>> really 'release' it.
>> We are taking something from SVN and consuming it in a binary distribution
>> that we've deployed to our site and telling the world to use it.
>> 
> 
> We consume a lot of resources from the website - the flex sdk, the md5, the
> mirror url cgi script (which IS code).  We dont release any of those in the
> source kit for the Installer.  How is the config xml any different?
> 
> We also consume a host of external dependencies like flash player, air sdk,
> etc.  According to your logic, we cannot do this because we cannot
> 'release' those files.
It is in our SVN with the rest of our code and dictates what the code does.
None of the other things you listed do both.

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


Mime
View raw message