But in jest to release Maven stuff we need a release of falcon to. I dud two-factor quit a lot of the structure there and falcon an falconjx are both part of the same Maven build.
Is there a reason for not releasing everything? Chris Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet. -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -------- Von: Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> Datum: 20.08.16 08:59 (GMT+01:00) An: dev@flex.apache.org Betreff: Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September? Thanks for the timely review. On 8/19/16, 4:58 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: >Hi, > >For FlexJS: > >I can see that mention of OpenFL has been added to LICENSE, however the >file in question [1] has an Apache license header (not MIT as I think it >should be). We’re also not following the terms of it's MIT license [2] to >include the copyright and full text of the license. Usually you add that >as a pointer to the license file in the LICENSE [3] and / or leave the >full text in the header. > >We also have the same issue with Flat UI i.e. missing the copyright and >full text of the license. I saw some other projects put both headers in a file with mixed content. I don't think it is worth trying to find every instance of mixed content in our releases, but for Matrix and FlatUI it could make sense. What are your thoughts on that? > >For FalconJX: > >Seems odd to me that we have code by Robert Penner and Grant Skinner in >the source release but only the binary release LICENSE mentions that. I >know they are patch files but the I'd add them to the LICENSE file to be >on the safe side. At worse case that’s just a documentation issue, but >not having them in the source LICENSE could be a licensing error. I don't know what lawyers would say, but IMO, a patch belongs to the person doing the modifications. Otherwise, we'd get into some weird nit-picking if someone submitted a patch where they deleted an unnecessary line of code, we would say they didn't own the modification since all content in the patch file would be stuff authored by others. > >Would be nice to see a bit more info in release notes to what has changed >since the last version, I think users would want to know what changed in >a bit more detail from the last release. Looks like we're not going to cut an RC until Om fixes NPM so anyone who has time to add more details is welcome to do so. > >We not making a release of Falcon right, just FalconJX? Correct -Alex
