+1. Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 10, 2017, at 2:01 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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>* >>
