:-) Well said Om, and if I had waited a few seconds, I wouldn't have repeated ourselves....
On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 6:01 AM, 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>* > > > -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
