Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
Hi, It sounded like we’d burn credits if we sign an RC and then have to sign a subsequent RC if the first RC doesn’t get approved by our PMC. As far as I’m aware there’s a test process which costs nothing, and it also costs if we (Apache as a whole) don’t use it. So I think we finish up the usual process then get it signed. That sounds possible, but I’m not sure how we would show that the binaries are the some ones or if it would require another VOTE. Thanks, Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
On 6/19/15, 12:16 AM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Hi, It sounded like we’d burn credits if we sign an RC and then have to sign a subsequent RC if the first RC doesn’t get approved by our PMC. As far as I’m aware there’s a test process which costs nothing, and it also costs if we (Apache as a whole) don’t use it. So I think we finish up the usual process then get it signed. That sounds possible, but I’m not sure how we would show that the binaries are the some ones or if it would require another VOTE. Our binaries have MD5 hashes. Anyway, I have no objection to you or somebody taking the next steps with Infra to find out more explicitly what our next steps are. It just isn’t clear to me that this signing needs to be done before release approval. -Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
HI, Heres the info from infra: https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/code_signing_service_now_available https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/code_signing_service_now_available Thanks, Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
HI, Which AIR/FP versions are offered is independent of the release. That is managed in a data file on flex.a.o. Understand but users would expect a new release to support the recently releases FP 18/AIR 18 would they not? What did you mean in your other post about signing the app? It is theoretically signed by some certificate Om created. The app could be signed to make the user install process much simpler. This signing is separate to signing the air application. See: https://support.apple.com/kb/PH18657?locale=en_US https://support.apple.com/kb/PH18657?locale=en_US https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee619725(v=ws.10).aspx https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee619725(v=ws.10).aspx Thanks, Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
Hi, Yes, because someone asked about it a while ago separate from this release. Please don’t mix work that folks besides the RM can do with what needs to be done to finish the release. Yep it’s not a release blocker and it is separate from the release. Last time Om, Greg and myself all tried to get a new FP version working and were unable to. You were able to fix it. Being full time on this project means you probably have a bit more bandwidth as well. All volunteers are of course free to work on what what they want, scratch your own itch and all that. If someone wants to take on signing the binary, that’s fine with me. If you want to make the next RC and then give me the binaries before putting them up I’ll give it a go, unless someone else wants to? I am getting on a plane in 24 hours and will be at a conference next week which might reduce my involvement a little. Thanks, Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
On 6/18/15, 5:21 PM, Justin Mclean justinmcl...@me.com wrote: HI, Which AIR/FP versions are offered is independent of the release. That is managed in a data file on flex.a.o. Understand but users would expect a new release to support the recently releases FP 18/AIR 18 would they not? Yes, because someone asked about it a while ago separate from this release. Please don’t mix work that folks besides the RM can do with what needs to be done to finish the release. What did you mean in your other post about signing the app? It is theoretically signed by some certificate Om created. The app could be signed to make the user install process much simpler. This signing is separate to signing the air application. If someone wants to take on signing the binary, that’s fine with me. -Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
On 6/18/15, 6:41 PM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: If someone wants to take on signing the binary, that’s fine with me. If you want to make the next RC and then give me the binaries before putting them up I’ll give it a go, unless someone else wants to? I am getting on a plane in 24 hours and will be at a conference next week which might reduce my involvement a little. My takeaway from the blog article is that we sign the binary we approve for distribution. It sounded like we’d burn credits if we sign an RC and then have to sign a subsequent RC if the first RC doesn’t get approved by our PMC. So I think we finish up the usual process then get it signed. I think it said a JIRA needs to be filed to get a certificate. I don’t know if a PMC discussion has to happen first, but feel free to get that started. -Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
On 6/18/15, 1:50 AM, Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl wrote: Anyone else seeing this or have I done something wrong? I reported this about an hour ago. Well, so much for the less-RC process. I’ll roll out another RC in about 9 hours. -Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
On 6/18/15, 2:12 PM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: HI, Well, so much for the less-RC process. I’ll roll out another RC in about 9 hours. You might want to allow more time for any other feedback and hopefully reduce the need for further RCs. How much longer should we wait? Anybody else planning to test RC1? BTW the binary in the source was found via rat perhaps the release process needs to be updated? While the approval script can save people time it may not catch everything so it generally a good idea for the RM to run rat manually. The approval script did catch it. -Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
HI, Well, so much for the less-RC process. I’ll roll out another RC in about 9 hours. You might want to allow more time for any other feedback and hopefully reduce the need for further RCs. BTW the binary in the source was found via rat perhaps the release process needs to be updated? While the approval script can save people time it may not catch everything so it generally a good idea for the RM to run rat manually. Thanks, Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
Hi, How much longer should we wait? Anybody else planning to test RC1? I would assume other people are.. I’ve still not reviewed the release in detail or even got to running the installer yet. It’s been under 24 hours so there may even be people who don’t even know we have a release to vote on. Thanks, Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
On 6/18/15, 2:31 PM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Hi, How much longer should we wait? Anybody else planning to test RC1? I would assume other people are.. I’ve still not reviewed the release in detail or even got to running the installer yet. It’s been under 24 hours so there may even be people who don’t even know we have a release to vote on. Theoretically, before I cut RC1, folks were supposed to review the packages in detail. I’ll probably still cut an RC2 tonight because I had to make enough changes to where some files live and the build script that packages them that people might be wasting time reviewing the RC1 packages. -Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
Hi, I’ll probably still cut an RC2 tonight because I had to make enough changes to where some files live and the build script that packages them that people might be wasting time reviewing the RC1 packages. That may be some other issues that need looking into before making a RC2 (see my vote email just posted). In particular from in testing SDK 4.14.1 and FlexJS 0.02 times out on the first step, also having FP/AIR 18 is also probably a good thing. I was unable to get a beta/non beta version working last time, you mind looking into that? Thanks, Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
On 6/18/15, 4:48 PM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Hi, I’ll probably still cut an RC2 tonight because I had to make enough changes to where some files live and the build script that packages them that people might be wasting time reviewing the RC1 packages. That may be some other issues that need looking into before making a RC2 (see my vote email just posted). In particular from in testing SDK 4.14.1 and FlexJS 0.02 times out on the first step, also having FP/AIR 18 is also probably a good thing. I was unable to get a beta/non beta version working last time, you mind looking into that? Which AIR/FP versions are offered is independent of the release. That is managed in a data file on flex.a.o. What did you mean in your other post about signing the app? It is theoretically signed by some certificate Om created. Is there some other signature that is needed? -Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
Hi, Are the contents of build.number correct? #Copyright 2014 The Apache Software Foundation. #Sat, 28 Sep 2013 18:23:00 +1000 build.number=0 Ignoring the incorrect dates, should the build.number be 0? Thanks, Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
Hi, The LICENSE and NOTICE are in the binary .dmg are exactly the same as the ones in the source release. I thought it was discussed and agreed that these should be different? Thanks, Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
build.number=0 Ignoring the incorrect dates, should the build.number be 0? ? EdB -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
Hi, The source release (.tar.gz) has a unexpected binary file inside it, so looks like there will need to be another RC. But I’ll do a full review before voting and see if there is anything else we need to fix as well. Here’s the file: ant_on_air/tests/OSMF2_0.swc Thanks, Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
Hi, The LICENSE and NOTICE are in the binary .dmg are exactly the same as the ones in the source release. I thought it was discussed and agreed that these should be different? Ah sorry they are different it's just that the extra license info is above the APACHE FLEX SUBCOMPONENTS” line. Thanks, Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
Hi, I’m also seeing a compile error, that seems to be related to placement of the NOTICE file? [get] To: /Users/justinmclean/Downloads/ApacheFlexSDKInstaller/apache-flex-sdk-installer-3.2.0-src/installer/deps/as3crypto/LICENSE.txt [java] no such file /Users/justinmclean/Downloads/ApacheFlexSDKInstaller/apache-flex-sdk-installer-3.2.0-src/installer/NOTICE [java] usage: [java] adt -checkstore SIGNING_OPTIONS snip BUILD FAILED /Users/justinmclean/Downloads/ApacheFlexSDKInstaller/apache-flex-sdk-installer-3.2.0-src/installer/build.xml:383: Java returned: 2 Anyone else seeing this or have I done something wrong? Thanks, Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
Anyone else seeing this or have I done something wrong? I reported this about an hour ago. EdB -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
Hi, Just trying to run the approve script. I get a failure while building. The 'packageair' step is looking for NOTICE in the 'installer' subdirectory, where it isn't. It seems to be in the root. Also I noticed that running the approve script that it doesn't check the PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME variable before starting, causing the build to just fail when it isn't. EdB On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: This is the discussion thread. Thanks, Alex Harui -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
[DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
This is the discussion thread. Thanks, Alex Harui
