On 4/22/16, 6:26 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>Ok ... so the hint with the no longer excluded stuff was good ... wonder >why I didn't see those changes ... oh well ... builds are back to "blue", >so Alex feel free to do stuff. > >But it keeps on getting more and more difficult to keep the branches in >sync ... would be happy to do the move soon. Me too. Once I get the Ant build working (or close to working), it will be time to merge the branch. >But I would like to do one rearrangement. > >Any objections to move the falcon and falcon-jx modules under a >"compiler" directory? I would like to have 3 directories in the end >"utils", "compiler" and "externs". Each reflecting on major part of the >build. How does this help us? Keep in mind that compiler may some day ship as a release without compiler-jx (but packaged with debugger and flex-compiler-oem) if it becomes useful for regular Flex SDK customers. In my mind, compiler-jx is downstream. >If it was possible I would like to link in the asjs repo inside a >"framework" directory. What are the benefits of doing that? Again, there is the possibility that there are release packages without the flex-asjs/frameworks SWCs. Also, there seems to be enough anti-git-submodule articles to make it onto the first page of search results. > >The old build sort of had the structure of the final SDK, I would >replicate this using Mavens assembly mechanism. Then finished sdks would >end up in the target directory of the assembly module. The final >structure would be like this: Do Maven customers actually care about the structure being like an SDK? I think we can teach the Installer ant script to do the assembly. -Alex
