Hi Piotr, ok, as we are still in preview site, not published, I think is better to wait for the final link. One thing is confusing me is that status link is more legit ( builds.apache.org) than the nightly links (apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net)
I think in a final stage we should not have "apacheflexbuild" right? But status seems ok to me at first sight thanks 2017-11-12 20:04 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>: > Another thing is: "Apache Royale Jenkings Job Status" - This status showing > the state of Maven build which is hosted on builds.apache.org. Since we > are > using Alex's machine for producing ditribution package for developers we > should not have it this link on the website. > > Maven is able to build distribution package, but so far it's missing some > things and you can use that package only for code completion purposes in > your IDE either Moonshine or VSCode. If I find resources I hope I will fix > it and we can then linking to Maven build. > > Thanks Carslo for that website! :) > Piotr > > > 2017-11-12 18:42 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>: > > > 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>* > > > > > > -- > > Piotr Zarzycki > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>* > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
