By the way … why is this directory called “flex-typedefs” and not
“flexjs-typedefs”?
Chris
Am 13.06.17, 08:55 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>:
Hi all,
Please don’t let this become another license discussion … I thought that
had been settled. I intentionally added that this was a technical issue in my
report.
If the flexjs-typedefs directory is going to be included in the compiler
package, the compiler packages pom needs an exclusion for the flexjs-typedefs
directory to avoid any problems like this. The content of the flesjs-typedefs
directory will be checked by the flexjs-typedefs build so in the end all is
checked. I’m just going to do this little tweak myself so if a new release
candidate is created, we have this “fix” in place.
Chris
Am 13.06.17, 00:49 schrieb "Dave Fisher" <dave2w...@comcast.net>:
Hi -
> On Jun 12, 2017, at 12:41 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
wrote:
>
> I'm confused. Can I get a summary?
>
> Are there some files that are being caught by RAT? If so, what are
they?
>
> Are we sure the process should be that the RM should switch away from
> SNAPSHOT before the vote? If a major problem is found in that RC,
> wouldn't we have deployed bad artifacts under the final version
number and
> have to pull them back? Or abandon that release version and use the
next
> version number?
The Tomcat project will user version numbers. If a version fails then
they advance to the next. They still produce changelings for the version that
is not released. You can see the gory details for version 7 here:
http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-7.0-doc/changelog.html
Regards,
Dave
>
> IMO, the main thing folks want from Maven are the JARs which aren't an
> official ASF release anyway. Seems like we should vote on a source
> package, then set any version numbers and have Maven build the final
jars
> from there. The differences in the source should only be in POMs and
> other configs right?
>
> What am I missing?
> -Alex
>
> On 6/12/17, 3:53 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
wrote:
>
>> It should be between the Last call and opening the vote. It is equal
to
>> “cutting the release candidate”.
>>
>> So, the LAST CALL thread is finished and the RM writes that he’s
going to
>> cut a release … AFTER THAT he does these steps and THEN he opens the
vote
>> thread. I never said anything else than that.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> Am 12.06.17, 12:30 schrieb "piotrz" <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> Chris,
>>
>> I'm a bit confused. You have said that I shouldn't do this as part
of
>> VOTING, LAST CALL:
>>
>> "No,
>>
>> The removing the SNAPSHOT, tagging and setting the new version
should
>> be,
>> more or less, one step.
>> "
>>
>> Now you are saying just opposite. So again when I should do this
>> (Last Call,
>> Voting) step ?
>>
>> "1) In order to have a proper Maven release, the versions of the
>> maven build
>> should be changed to “0.8.0” (omit the SNAPSHOT). "
>>
>> Piotr
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> Apache Flex PMC
>> piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>>
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-fle
>>
x-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com%2FDISCUSS-Discuss-Release-Apache-FlexJ
>>
S-0-8-0-RC1-tp62274p62341.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C764b156340ed4161762808d4b
>>
1813b7a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636328616008847001&sd
>> ata=pnXSK31V8HvCRI9NlEVlGD0SgCczOCQYlw0PyoVZnfQ%3D&reserved=0
>> Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at
>> Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>
