All Flex project repos are prefixed with flex-
> On Jun 13, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
> wrote:
>
> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
