Let's proceed with release. I think we have enough votes.
śr., 4 gru 2024 o 11:51 Maria Jose Esteve <mjest...@iest.com> napisał(a):
> Yishay, I have compiled the SDK several times without problems and all my
> projects have worked fine (big and small. OnlyJS)
> I have not answered because I have not followed the steps of the protocol.
> Sorry, next time I will try to have more time.
>
> Hiedra
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Yishay Weiss <yishayj...@hotmail.com>
> Enviado el: miércoles, 4 de diciembre de 2024 10:46
> Para: dev@royale.apache.org
> Asunto: Re: [DISCUSS} Release Apache Royale 0.9.12 RC2
>
> Josh, I noticed you manually bumped some config files to version 0.9.13.
> There is a script we run after release which is supposed to take care of
> that, so I think it's unnecessary.
>
> Is anybody else planning to review the release candidate?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Greg Dove <greg.d...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 3:47 AM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org <dev@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} Release Apache Royale 0.9.12 RC2
>
> Just two things I'd like to note (neither affected my vote):
>
> 1. (Apologies if this may have been already discussed somewhere and I
> missed it). For the release notes, maybe it would be good to have a "0.9.11
> Omitted" (or skipped or something else) to signify that this version was
> explicitly skipped. I am not sure if it is necessary or not, and I expect
> it can simply be done in the future. It just seems odd (to me) to have a
> version sequence with no mention of that.
>
> 2. The ApproveRoyale.xml script reported version 1.9 for my Java version,
> which is java 9. But my actual java executable in the path and JAVA_HOME is
> java 17, and i don't believe I have java 9 anywhere anymore.
> So maybe the ApproveRoyale script should have this:
> Java ${java.version}
> instead of:
> Java ${ant.java.version}
> but I don't know.... if anyone has suggestions, please share :)
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 9:28 AM Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev>
> wrote:
>
> > It is also worth mentioning that when the approval script finishes
> > successfully, the apache-royale-x.y.z-src directory will actually
> > contain a binary distribution that the approval script built from
> > source. This may be JS-only or JS-SWF depending on which environment
> > variables that you have set.
> >
> > Certain environment variables being non-empty trigger the build of a
> > JS-SWF SDK. So, to build a JS-only SDK, you should make sure that
> > those environment variables are NOT set.
> >
> > If I remember correctly, the main one that should not be set when you
> > want to build a JS-only SDK is AIR_HOME.
> >
> > However, here are several SWF environment variables that are not
> > needed when building the JS-only SDK with the approval script, and
> > it's probably safest to clear them all before running the approval
> > script if you want a JS-only SDK:
> >
> > AIR_HOME
> > PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME
> > PLAYERGLOBAL_VERSION
> > FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER
> >
> > I cleared all of these environment variables on my machine, and I got
> > a JS-only SDK in the apache-royale-0.9.12-src directory that worked in
> > vscode-as3mxml.
> >
> > One final note, after a JS-SWF SDK is built, it will not include
> > Adobe's playerglobal.swc or the AIR SDK. The JS-SWF SDK won't work in
> > IDEs like Moonshine or VSCode until these are added manually.
> >
> > Hopefully, this helps folks with testing!
> >
> > --
> > Josh Tynjala
> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 3:27 AM Piotr Zarzycki
> > <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Yishay,
> > >
> > > I have gone through tests using ApprovalScript.xml while - building
> > > from source and everything else went fine, produced binaries doesn't
> > > work in Moonshine. Build trough approval produced folder
> > > "apache-royale-0.9.12-bin-js-swf" - Inside there are three folders
> > > as
> > usual
> > > - I tried "royale-asjs" - Moonshine recognize this correctly,
> > > language server is working fine, but when I tried build my project
> > > using it - Console was basically empty - no sign of building. - Is
> > > this the right folder which can be used in IDE ?
> > >
> > > With my projects I'm usually using binaries JS-only, not js-swf.
> > >
> > > Using Maven artifacts my projects are building correctly.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Piotr
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > śr., 20 lis 2024 o 09:30 Maria Jose Esteve <mjest...@iest.com>
> > napisał(a):
> > >
> > > > Thanks Yishay, I've never checked this before but I will over the
> > > weekend.
> > > > Thx
> > > >
> > > > -----Mensaje original-----
> > > > De: Greg Dove <greg.d...@gmail.com> Enviado el: miércoles, 20 de
> > > > noviembre de 2024 7:29
> > > > Para: dev@royale.apache.org
> > > > Asunto: Re: [DISCUSS} Release Apache Royale 0.9.12 RC2
> > > >
> > > > Yes, thanks for making this happen, Yishay :) I will try to find
> > > > time
> > in
> > > > the next two days, otherwise it will be Saturday at the latest.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 6:38 PM Piotr Zarzycki <
> > > piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks Yishay! Good work! I will try to look into that tomorrow.
> > > > >
> > > > > Piotr Zarzycki
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 at 18:15, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Great work! Thanks!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > FYI, I’m traveling for a few days. I’m not sure when I’ll have
> > > > > > time to test. It might not be until next week.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Harbs
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Nov 18, 2024, at 11:04 PM, Yishay Weiss
> > > > > > > <yishayj...@hotmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is the discussion thread.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Yishay Weiss
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Piotr Zarzycki
> > >
> >
>
--
Piotr Zarzycki
