royale-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>
Subject Re: Release Philosophy (was Re: [Website] Getting content ready to publish)
Date Fri, 10 Nov 2017 22:57:06 GMT
+1.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 10, 2017, at 2:01 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosmallm@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I think it is okay for us to have a 'Nightly builds' section on our website
> like these projects:
> 
> http://jmeter.apache.org/nightly.html
> https://wiki.apache.org/solr/NightlyBuilds
> https://ant.apache.org/nightlies.html
> https://poi.apache.org/download.html#nightly
> https://lucene.apache.org/core/developer.html
> 
> Of course, we need to say in big bold letters that these builds should not
> be used in production, and that they are not supported by the Apache Royale
> team.  They are there only for testing purposes and that they can discuss
> issues found in nightly builds in the dev@royale.apache.org list.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.
> 
> Thanks,
> Om
> 
> 
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> I think that is the solution for nightly builds. We should state on the
>> website that we can provide Nightly Builds when someone ask on dev, users.
>> Can it be ok ? I like such idea.
>> 
>> I agree with you Alex that we should wait for the release for your
>> refactoring, but we need to have statement above as fast as we can, cause
>> there from time to time is asking where I can find artifacts.
>> 
>> Piotr
>> 
>> 
>> 2017-11-10 20:12 GMT+01:00 Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net>:
>> 
>>> Hi -
>>> 
>>> I agree it is intent and trust. A couple of incidents in the long history
>>> of POI.
>>> 
>>> (1) we discovered a GPL file that had been in the source tree for a
>> couple
>>> of releases and removed it.
>>> 
>>> (2) we had a complaint from the copyright holder that a test file
>> belonged
>>> to him. It had been there for many years. We removed it from the next
>>> release.
>>> 
>>> Anyone concerned with nit picking this should be watching every commit.
>> In
>>> the Incubator a mentor will bring it up then and most often say next
>> time.
>>> Here in a project we deal as they come and it should be on the commit.
>>> 
>>> If someone brings in a significant amount of code then a SGA may be
>> needed
>>> along with IP Clearance in the Incubator.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>>> On Nov 10, 2017, at 11:02 AM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com.INVALID>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Dave,
>>>> 
>>>> It would help to make license problems rare if we also do something
>> else
>>>> Roy has mentioned recently that has to do with trust and intent.  If
>> you
>>>> dig hard enough, or take an "untrusting" philosophy that if something
>>>> isn't perfectly documented that someone is going to use that
>> imperfection
>>>> against you or the foundation, you can continue to find small licensing
>>>> issues, especially in the third party artifacts we consume.
>>>> 
>>>> Roy basically said that folks want us to use the stuff the make
>> available
>>>> on open source sites otherwise they wouldn't have put it there.  They
>>>> might have slightly different rules about sharing it and modifications
>> to
>>>> it, but the intent is to share it.
>>>> 
>>>> So let me add to "better and not illegal" with "trust".
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> -Alex
>>>> 
>>>>> On 11/10/17, 10:47 AM, "Dave Fisher" <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi -
>>>>> 
>>>>> For source code we can point to github from the website.
>>>>> 
>>>>> For nightly builds we can let people know about it on dev@ but should
>>> not
>>>>> link to it from the website. We can explain on the website or wiki
>> that
>>>>> we are doing nightly builds and that they can find out from the dev@
>>> list.
>>>>> 
>>>>> At this point it should be rare to have a license problem in the
>>>>> repository because we all should know the rules or how to ask on dev@
>>> or
>>>>> private@ first.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Clear?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Dave
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Nov 10, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com.INVALID>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Forking this specific issue about nightly builds...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> AIUI, this issue about nightly builds has arisen before with other
>>>>>> projects.  I'd have to go through board@/member@ archives but I
>> think
>>>>>> some
>>>>>> projects have found some pretty clever solutions to linking to
>> nightly
>>>>>> builds.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That said, one of the benefits of creating a Royale project separate
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> Flex is that there should not be any 'competition' in the release
>>> queue.
>>>>>> For example, the Flex project is currently trying to get two releases
>>>>>> out,
>>>>>> and if some other Flex member wanted to rush out a BlazeDS release,
>>>>>> they'd
>>>>>> probably have to wait.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Royale has 3 main repos, and under FlexJS/Falcon, we created 2 sets
>> of
>>>>>> release artifacts.  Royale might still have 2 sets of release
>> artifacts
>>>>>> (
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Piotr Zarzycki
>> 
>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>> 


Mime
View raw message