royale-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org>
Subject Re: Release Philosophy (was Re: [Website] Getting content ready to publish)
Date Sat, 11 Nov 2017 01:45:27 GMT
:-)  Well said Om, and if I had waited a few seconds, I wouldn't have
repeated ourselves....

On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 6:01 AM, 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>*
> >
>



-- 
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java

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