Hi Carlos, Here you go links to Royale. I see proper names. Royale [1] JS Only [2]. I did just quick look and when I came to the website I started to search this information that Nightly is not for production. After w while I have found this red rectangle. I think font size could be a bit bigger there.
[1] http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/royale-asjs/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/out/ [2] http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/royale-asjs-jsonly/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/out/ Piotr 2017-11-12 18:30 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>: > Hi, > > here's the download page for you to review. > > http://royale.codeoscopic.com/download/ > > Some things to mention: > > * As we already don't have release binaries, the first section could be > consider under construction > * For nightly builds I use the links posted by Alex in October. I think > those links are somewhat temporal since are labeled in "FlexJS" instead of > "RoyaleJS" or something and he mentions the to rename in the future. > > You can check if links are the expected, or we need to put something more. > > Take into account that the info is what I found navigating through the > mailing list and since I'm not a user of that links, although we will need > to update as we get final names, they can be wrong links at this time. > > Hope you guys could let me know what is right and wrong > > Thanks > > Carlos > > > > > > 2017-11-11 11:35 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>: > > > Hi Alex, > > > > as in lots of things in life I think we should get to some point in the > > middle. I think it would be bad if we try to make lots of components in > few > > time, since as you said, we don't know what things people will need > > nowadays. I like your point about "we don't need to mimic Flex 4.x", for > > example, a cool Date component should work seamlessly in mobile and > > desktop, so better to create a royale one than try to get Flex 4 > > DateChooser and DateSpinner, since we have in flex both due to the way > Flex > > was evolving through the years. They worked great for the web and > desktop, > > but suddenly a new mobile world emerge and they must respect the old way > to > > do things. > > > > In the other hand, I think it would be very bad for us to left things > > completely to users demand. We know right now that some components are > > needed and we can propose others as well. > > > > I think I'll better create a new thread since I think this one was more > > about releases and nightly builds so we can stay on focus > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-11-11 8:04 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>: > > > >> Well, I would love to be wrong about "few years", but I know I wouldn't > >> bet any money on knowing what components and features our users who are > >> migrating from Flex are going to need. And I would hope we don't have > to > >> say to any users "well, we don't have that component/feature so too > bad", > >> unless it is a really extensive and expensive component that we don't > have > >> the committer-power to reproduce. Maybe we do have the ability to > gather > >> that list of components/features up front, but I am expecting that we > are > >> going to have to be demand-driven. Whoever signs up to migrate to > Royale > >> will have my priority just like Harbs and Yishay did. I did not ask > them > >> to commit up front to what they needed, they started migrating and asked > >> for stuff and we made it happen. I expect it to be like that for at > least > >> a few years, and we need to be able to make releases quickly in order to > >> respond to those users. > >> > >> I'm hopeful that as we gain users, we will also have more automated > tests > >> and that's how we are going to try to prevent breaking people's apps, > but > >> I think we will be spending at least a few years bringing new components > >> and features to Royale and need to get that stuff out to users as > quickly > >> as possible. If you think about the number of person-hours invested in > >> the writing and testing and documenting of Apache Flex and its third > party > >> components, and compare that to the time Peter and I have spent on > Royale > >> (subtract out what we've spent on Flex and non-FlexJS work) plus Harbs > and > >> Yishay (subtract out the time they spent on their actual app) and others > >> like Om, Erik, Carlos and Piotr, it looks to me that there is still > plenty > >> of work to be done, and the only way to decide what order to do things > is > >> to do what users ask us for. > >> > >> I know you want a clear list of controls/components for a theme, but I > >> don't know how we will decide other than, say, taking the ones actually > >> used by Harbs and adding any other component wanted by the next folks > that > >> sign up for migration. > >> > >> My philosophy is to not set expectations too high (that Royale will be > >> like Flex 4.x) and failing to meet those expectations. If we make a lot > >> of noise soon, what kinds of people will that bring, and what will make > >> them stay? If we can attract more pioneers like our current committers > >> who are willing to help blaze the trail, great, let's go get them. If > it > >> is going to bring in folks who are expecting Royale to be like Flex, I'm > >> not sure we are there yet. I think this latter group is going to want > to > >> know about success stories from other people, so IMO, the most important > >> thing is that we need to make a few more users successful in their > >> migration. But those next users are going to have to be willing to put > up > >> with bugs and missing features, so we need to set their expectations > >> appropriately. > >> > >> My 2 cents, > >> -Alex > >> > >> On 11/10/17, 11:47 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos > >> Rovira" <carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrov...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >Hi, > >> > > >> >I agree with this, but want to expose some thoughts that I consider > >> >important: > >> > > >> >I think we must to cut a release as we get in the same similar stable > >> >state > >> >as we had in FlexJS (0.8.0), and call it 0.8.0, since this is only a > >> >transition release to get in our new house, but we still have some > >> missing > >> >key pieces to get 0.9.0 and 1.0 > >> > > >> >I suppose a Alex talks about "some years" but I don't think so. If we > do > >> >0.9 and 1.0 in the right way, I expect to make huge noise on the > internet > >> >talking about Apache Royale and making lots of people put an eye on us. > >> >This must be at proper time to get people reaching to us not leave > easily > >> >and take us seriously as a real alternative. > >> > > >> >How many time to get this? I hope more soon than later. Maybe 1T 2018? > >> 2T? > >> >People coming at that time will start to use Royale and we will need > some > >> >coherence all around. > >> > > >> >That's crucial and that will make us not easy to make certain changes > >> that > >> >could make user developments not valid. > >> > > >> >So, for example, We still does not have a clear list of starter UI > >> >components and controls. I think we will need to discuss that and work > >> for > >> >it so people could rely on some quality components (I think I will > create > >> >a > >> >thread about this concrete part since I think is crucial for us). We > will > >> >need to have certain parts of Royale very robust and defined so people > >> >could come and expect and easy relation with that parts and avoid to > left > >> >because they think we "many things" but as well "many of that things > are > >> >not finished" in a quality level similar to the quality level reached > on > >> >apache flex. > >> > > >> >So, going back. We need to cut a release as soon as we can to get a > valid > >> >starter point, we need to release the new website with quality content > >> and > >> >what we could have soon (if we have royale on NPM, that's good!, and so > >> >on....), we can put a download page with releases and talk about ways > for > >> >people to get nightly builds, but we must think in the people that will > >> >come to us and what they expect to see; > >> > > >> >For me: something clear, as easy as possible info in website, an sdk > with > >> >proven valid ways to make apps and a concrete set of UI controls and > >> >components that works really well to start building the same day they > >> know > >> >about Apache Royale. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >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 > >> >> >>> ( > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> >-- > >> >Carlos Rovira > >> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A% > >> 2F%2Fabout.me%2 > >> >Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7C%7C4ddfd5d3bb8e44f9b4c508d5287 > >> 3f24b%7Cfa7b1b5 > >> >a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636459400811686261&sdat > >> a=AONFxld%2FTJz > >> >zDM%2Frjf0g6L8PfwqlpJHkF9RVZII1TWo%3D&reserved=0 > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Carlos Rovira > > http://about.me/carlosrovira > > > > > > > -- > Carlos Rovira > http://about.me/carlosrovira > -- Piotr Zarzycki Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
