I think it is okay for us to have a 'Nightly builds' section on our website like these projects:
http://jmeter.apache.org/nightly.html https://wiki.apache.org/solr/NightlyBuilds https://ant.apache.org/nightlies.html https://poi.apache.org/download.html#nightly https://lucene.apache.org/core/developer.html Of course, we need to say in big bold letters that these builds should not be used in production, and that they are not supported by the Apache Royale team. They are there only for testing purposes and that they can discuss issues found in nightly builds in the dev@royale.apache.org list. Just my 2 cents. Thanks, Om On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think that is the solution for nightly builds. We should state on the > website that we can provide Nightly Builds when someone ask on dev, users. > Can it be ok ? I like such idea. > > I agree with you Alex that we should wait for the release for your > refactoring, but we need to have statement above as fast as we can, cause > there from time to time is asking where I can find artifacts. > > Piotr > > > 2017-11-10 20:12 GMT+01:00 Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>: > > > Hi - > > > > I agree it is intent and trust. A couple of incidents in the long history > > of POI. > > > > (1) we discovered a GPL file that had been in the source tree for a > couple > > of releases and removed it. > > > > (2) we had a complaint from the copyright holder that a test file > belonged > > to him. It had been there for many years. We removed it from the next > > release. > > > > Anyone concerned with nit picking this should be watching every commit. > In > > the Incubator a mentor will bring it up then and most often say next > time. > > Here in a project we deal as they come and it should be on the commit. > > > > If someone brings in a significant amount of code then a SGA may be > needed > > along with IP Clearance in the Incubator. > > > > Regards, > > Dave > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > On Nov 10, 2017, at 11:02 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Dave, > > > > > > It would help to make license problems rare if we also do something > else > > > Roy has mentioned recently that has to do with trust and intent. If > you > > > dig hard enough, or take an "untrusting" philosophy that if something > > > isn't perfectly documented that someone is going to use that > imperfection > > > against you or the foundation, you can continue to find small licensing > > > issues, especially in the third party artifacts we consume. > > > > > > Roy basically said that folks want us to use the stuff the make > available > > > on open source sites otherwise they wouldn't have put it there. They > > > might have slightly different rules about sharing it and modifications > to > > > it, but the intent is to share it. > > > > > > So let me add to "better and not illegal" with "trust". > > > > > > Thanks, > > > -Alex > > > > > >> On 11/10/17, 10:47 AM, "Dave Fisher" <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi - > > >> > > >> For source code we can point to github from the website. > > >> > > >> For nightly builds we can let people know about it on dev@ but should > > not > > >> link to it from the website. We can explain on the website or wiki > that > > >> we are doing nightly builds and that they can find out from the dev@ > > list. > > >> > > >> At this point it should be rare to have a license problem in the > > >> repository because we all should know the rules or how to ask on dev@ > > or > > >> private@ first. > > >> > > >> Clear? > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> Dave > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Sent from my iPhone > > >> > > >>> On Nov 10, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Forking this specific issue about nightly builds... > > >>> > > >>> AIUI, this issue about nightly builds has arisen before with other > > >>> projects. I'd have to go through board@/member@ archives but I > think > > >>> some > > >>> projects have found some pretty clever solutions to linking to > nightly > > >>> builds. > > >>> > > >>> That said, one of the benefits of creating a Royale project separate > > >>> from > > >>> Flex is that there should not be any 'competition' in the release > > queue. > > >>> For example, the Flex project is currently trying to get two releases > > >>> out, > > >>> and if some other Flex member wanted to rush out a BlazeDS release, > > >>> they'd > > >>> probably have to wait. > > >>> > > >>> Royale has 3 main repos, and under FlexJS/Falcon, we created 2 sets > of > > >>> release artifacts. Royale might still have 2 sets of release > artifacts > > >>> ( > > > > > > > -- > > Piotr Zarzycki > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>* >
