Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?

[Alex Harui]

Aiui the method bodies are derived from openfl and look similar enough that we 
should at least give credit in license.  It is easy enough to add a header too.

Sent from my LG G3, an AT 4G LTE smartphone

-- Original message--
From: Harbs
Date: Sat, Aug 20, 2016 11:19 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org;
Subject:Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?

It’s also not an exact copy of anything. I’d say it’s owned by Apache and no 
need for anything else.

FYI, I’m going to be off the grid for most of the week.

On Aug 20, 2016, at 5:36 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:

> When I look at Matrix.as it appears that Harbs added ASDoc.

Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?

[Harbs]

It’s also not an exact copy of anything. I’d say it’s owned by Apache and no 
need for anything else.

FYI, I’m going to be off the grid for most of the week.

On Aug 20, 2016, at 5:36 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:

> When I look at Matrix.as it appears that Harbs added ASDoc.

Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?

[Alex Harui]

On 8/20/16, 12:24 AM, "Justin Mclean"  wrote:

>Hi,
>
>> I saw some other projects put both headers in a file with mixed content.
>> I don't think it is worth trying to find every instance of mixed content
>> in our releases, but for Matrix and FlatUI it could make sense.  What
>>are
>> your thoughts on that?
>
>Depends how much change has been made, an Apache header should not added
>and the the original license keep unless there have been significant
>changes. [1] (see 3,4 + 5)

When I look at Matrix.as it appears that Harbs added ASDoc.  So, IMO there
is enough content that should be labelled as ASF-owned to have both
headers.

>
>> I don't know what lawyers would say, but IMO, a patch belongs to the
>> person doing the modifications.
>
>But I think you would agrees the patch file contains code that belongs to
>the original copyright owners and those license need be be respected.

No, I think you have not understood my argument from before.  Patch files
almost always contain some code from prior committers and your logic would
dictate that some kinds of patches, like just deleting a line of code,
would not be owned by the modifier.

>I just notice the patch actually removes the original license which is
>probably not a valid thing to do. (see above)
>
>Why not be on the safe side and mention it the source LICENSE (as there's
>no harm done if it ever turns out they were not needed)? By not
>mentioning them it’s probably a licensing error. Unless you really think
>it worth a delay in asking asking legal discuss for clarification.

I believe what we have done is good enough so no plans to delay unless
other PMC members want to delay or have different opinions.  IMO, an
externs file is not a port, it is a re-implementation as its functionality
and the way it implements functionality is significantly changed.

AIUI, the purpose of LICENSE and file headers are simply to provide
convenient signposts to consumers.  Small details do not change the actual
licensing/copyright of a line of code.  The purpose of this thread is to
see if enough PMC members have reviewed the packages and will vote +1
without wasting time sending out votes and canceling them when problems
are found.

I have updated the approval scripts to use the release branch.  It would
be good for other PMC folks who plan to vote on the release to perform
their reviews as well and they can use the scripts is a convenience if
they want.

Get ApproveFlexJS.xml from the release branch of flex-asjs.  Put it in a
new folder, run 'ant -e -f ApproveFlexJS.xml -Drelease.version=0.7.0'
Get ApproveFalcon.xml from the release branch of flex-falcon.  Put it in a
new folder, run 'ant -e -f ApproveFalcon.xml -Drelease.version=0.7.0'

Thanks,
-Alex

>
>1. http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party

Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> I saw some other projects put both headers in a file with mixed content.
> I don't think it is worth trying to find every instance of mixed content
> in our releases, but for Matrix and FlatUI it could make sense.  What are
> your thoughts on that?

Depends how much change has been made, an Apache header should not added and 
the the original license keep unless there have been significant changes. [1] 
(see 3,4 + 5)

> I don't know what lawyers would say, but IMO, a patch belongs to the
> person doing the modifications.

But I think you would agrees the patch file contains code that belongs to the 
original copyright owners and those license need be be respected. I just notice 
the patch actually removes the original license which is probably not a valid 
thing to do. (see above)

Why not be on the safe side and mention it the source LICENSE (as there's no 
harm done if it ever turns out they were not needed)? By not mentioning them 
it’s probably a licensing error. Unless you really think it worth a delay in 
asking asking legal discuss for clarification.

Thanks,
Justin

1. http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party

Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?

[Alex Harui]

Thanks for the timely review.

On 8/19/16, 4:58 PM, "Justin Mclean"  wrote:

>Hi,
>
>For FlexJS:
>
>I can see that mention of OpenFL has been added to LICENSE, however the
>file in question [1] has an Apache license header (not MIT as I think it
>should be). We’re also not following the terms of it's MIT license [2] to
>include the copyright and full text of the license. Usually you add that
>as a pointer to the license file in the LICENSE [3]  and / or leave the
>full text in the header.
>
>We also have the same issue with Flat UI i.e. missing the copyright and
>full text of the license.

I saw some other projects put both headers in a file with mixed content.
I don't think it is worth trying to find every instance of mixed content
in our releases, but for Matrix and FlatUI it could make sense.  What are
your thoughts on that?


>
>For FalconJX:
>
>Seems odd to me that we have code by Robert Penner and Grant Skinner in
>the source release but only the binary release LICENSE mentions that. I
>know they are patch files but the I'd add them to the LICENSE file to be
>on the safe side. At worse case that’s just a documentation issue, but
>not having them in the source LICENSE could be a licensing error.

I don't know what lawyers would say, but IMO, a patch belongs to the
person doing the modifications.  Otherwise, we'd get into some weird
nit-picking if someone submitted a patch where they deleted an unnecessary
line of code, we would say they didn't own the modification since all
content in the patch file would be stuff authored by others.

>
>Would be nice to see a bit more info in release notes to what has changed
>since the last version, I think users would want to know what changed in
>a bit more detail from the last release.

Looks like we're not going to cut an RC until Om fixes NPM so anyone who
has time to add more details is welcome to do so.

>
>We not making a release of Falcon right, just FalconJX?

Correct

-Alex

Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

For FlexJS:

I can see that mention of OpenFL has been added to LICENSE, however the file in 
question [1] has an Apache license header (not MIT as I think it should be). 
We’re also not following the terms of it's MIT license [2] to include the 
copyright and full text of the license. Usually you add that as a pointer to 
the license file in the LICENSE [3]  and / or leave the full text in the header.

We also have the same issue with Flat UI i.e. missing the copyright and full 
text of the license.

For FalconJX:

Seems odd to me that we have code by Robert Penner and Grant Skinner in the 
source release but only the binary release LICENSE mentions that. I know they 
are patch files but the I'd add them to the LICENSE file to be on the safe 
side. At worse case that’s just a documentation issue, but not having them in 
the source LICENSE could be a licensing error.

We’re also missing the full text of the BSD license (as required by it terms) 
for svg.js in the binary release.


For both:

Some of the example app.xml files have "Copyright 2015 The Apache Software 
Foundation” that probably should be updated.

Would be nice to see a bit more info in release notes to what has changed since 
the last version, I think users would want to know what changed in a bit more 
detail from the last release.

We not making a release of Falcon right, just FalconJX?

Thanks,
Justin

1. frameworks/projects/Core/src/main/flex/org/apache/flex/geom/Matrix.as
2. https://github.com/openfl/openfl/blob/develop/LICENSE.md
3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps

Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> I'm not sure what that means, but I believe it has been agreed upon that
> we are supposed to conduct as thorough a review of the nightly builds as
> would be done of the RC

Has any other PMC member reviewed the latest or a recent nightly?

Thanks,
Justin

Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?

[Josh Tynjala]

I have been using the latest nightlies to work on some projects, and things
look good to me.

- Josh

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Alex Harui  wrote:

>
>
> On 8/19/16, 1:41 AM, "Justin Mclean"  wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >> Should we wait for more reviews or create release candidates?
> >
> >IMO proof is in the eating rather than looking at the menu, time for a RC!
>
> I'm not sure what that means, but I believe it has been agreed upon that
> we are supposed to conduct as thorough a review of the nightly builds as
> would be done of the RC, because it is way more efficient to find a
> problem in the nightly than in the RC.  Even the board has recommended
> such an approach, and for reviewing commits.
>
> So please, make a review of the latest nightly or of the commits since
> your last review of the nightly and let us know what you find.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
>

Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?

[Alex Harui]

On 8/19/16, 1:41 AM, "Justin Mclean"  wrote:

>Hi,
>
>> Should we wait for more reviews or create release candidates?
>
>IMO proof is in the eating rather than looking at the menu, time for a RC!

I'm not sure what that means, but I believe it has been agreed upon that
we are supposed to conduct as thorough a review of the nightly builds as
would be done of the RC, because it is way more efficient to find a
problem in the nightly than in the RC.  Even the board has recommended
such an approach, and for reviewing commits.

So please, make a review of the latest nightly or of the commits since
your last review of the nightly and let us know what you find.

Thanks,
-Alex

Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> Should we wait for more reviews or create release candidates?

IMO proof is in the eating rather than looking at the menu, time for a RC!

Justin

Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?

[Alex Harui]

Release branches have been created.  I haven't hooked them up to CI.

Should we wait for more reviews or create release candidates?

-Alex

On 8/18/16, 9:57 AM, "Harbs"  wrote:

>+1.
>
>I think now would be a good time to cut a release branch.
>
>On Aug 18, 2016, at 6:40 PM, Christofer Dutz 
>wrote:
>
>> Perhaps it would be a good idea to start with release branches this
>>time.
>

Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?

[Harbs]

+1.

I think now would be a good time to cut a release branch.

On Aug 18, 2016, at 6:40 PM, Christofer Dutz  wrote:

> Perhaps it would be a good idea to start with release branches this time.

Re: Will we have a new release out the door till 8th of September?

[Alex Harui]

On 8/18/16, 4:40 AM, "Christofer Dutz"  wrote:

>Hi,
>
>
>as I mentioned a few days ago, I will be having a talk on FlexJS in
>Hamburg on 08.09.2016 (http://programmplaner.solutions.hamburg/#/).
>
>
>I hope we will be able to ship a new version with the Maven support till
>then? Do you think that's possible? What are we missing?
>
>
>I would suggest that I stage a Maven release and you do an Ant release
>based on the Maven Release Tag. Maven does two commits during a release:
>1. change the version number to the release version, 2. Change the
>version to the next development version. It tags the commit number 1
>automatically. So if you would do an Ant release from that state, the
>version number should be consistent. The only thing we would need to do
>is merge both ends back together, but that shouldn't be an issue as the
>files touched during an Ant release should be different than those of a
>Maven release.
>
>
>The only thing I would need to do before that, would be to prepare 1.0.0
>releases of the build-helper-maven plugin and the little jburg-types jar.
>I could initiate this any time.

I asked this in a different thread, but where is the source package for
the official vote?  From the Ant or Maven builds?  I have not checked the
Maven builds.  If the plan is to use the Ant builds for the source
package, then your plan sounds fine to me.

AFAIK, I am just waiting on one more check-in from Peter on the examples.
It would be great to get Justin's thumbs up before starting the vote, or
we can just gamble that we've addressed all of his earlier issues.

Thoughts?
-Alex