The problem is the project was abandoned, and somebody other than the original owner did the migration from Google Code to GitHub (this is in the last month -- which is why this took a bit longer). There are about 8 forks of that "original" github project, all which include different patches to make the engine work a bit better with certain edge cases. We can't download the original from GC anymore since the migration took place.
If we were to bring the source and it's dependencies into the project via a git clone, do we then add those directories into the .gitignore to avoid people adding them into our tree? I couldn't see any examples of where we did this in any of our projects (we do bring in external bytecode via swc's, but I haven't seen source). -Nick On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > On 5/31/15, 3:38 PM, "Nicholas Kwiatkowski" <nicho...@spoon.as> wrote: > > >I pushed the changes to develop. If somebody could test them, I would > >appreciate it. I don't know if I caught all the instances of URLLoader > >that are being used, but the new code seems to be triggered in the > >download > >process a few times. > > Awesome. I will try to take a look after I push FDB for Falcon. > > > > >I did have to make a few changes to the as3httpclient module. The old > >version hasn't been updated with the new root certificates, nor did it > >allow conical names in the SSL certificate (which Apache just started > >using > >a few months ago because they are using the same certificate for > >apache.org > >as the openoffice websites. The updated module is on my github account ( > >https://github.com/quetwo/as3httpclient). I sent an email a few times > >over > >the last two weeks to the original owner of the codebase to see if this is > >something he would want the Apache Foundation to manage (via us), but I > >haven't heard back. The license does allow me, and us, to use a fork of > >his project within ours. > > Could we simply keep a patch of your changes and apply it to a download of > the sources from GH? I don’t know of modified forks fall under this > “policy” but I’ve seen Roy say that Apache policy is to not take over > projects so we’d need a positive ok and donation procedure even though the > source is under AL unless forks are exceptions somehow. So a patch might > be better. We already patch Batik in the SDK. > > -Alex > >
