Build failed in Jenkins: royale-asjs_MXTests #715

[Apache Royale CI Server]

See 


--
[...truncated 2.04 MB...]
[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

Jenkins build is back to normal : royale-asjs_jsonly #2871

[Apache Royale CI Server]

See 

RE: Let's bump Royale version to 1.0

[Justin M. Hill]

I agree with Piotr.

Perception matters.  1.0 does not need to be perfect, it just needs to be
good enough.   And Royale is good enough to be called 1.0 in my opinion.
It has 2 production applications -- ones from Harbs and Carlos are already
running on it from what I understand.


Royale needs to get traction in the market.


Many people will not pay attention until the following items occur:

1) A version 1.0 is released

2) There are clear tutorials which can get people started quickly [the
Moonshine team has agreed to fund a few videos to get this started]

3) It is very easy for new developers to get started with the technology
[the Moonshine IDE accomplishes this with first class support for Royale,
Flex, and ActionScript]

3) Documentation is improved, easy to read, friendly, and up-to-date

4) Marketing ensues explaining why people should look at Royale compared to
React, ExtJS, Angular, etc.   If these articles can get written, the
Moonshine IDE team is willing to help fund some Google and other campaigns
to bring traction.

5) Multiple IDEs support Royale well -- not just Moonshine IDE and Visual
Studio Code.   Eclipse, IntelliJ, FlashDevelop also all need to support
Royale.

6) Testimonials from other companies who have ported Flex or created fresh
Royale applications become commonplace and trust starts to build that the
conversion is possible

7) A consulting ecosystem needs to exist where it is fast for newcomers /
explorers to decide the technology is worth pursuing and want to engage
with a consultant to help them along the journey.


Of the above items, the first and easiest thing to control is whether we
call the software 1.0 or not.   I last had this discussing 28 months ago
with Alex in Seattle.   A huge amount of work has gone into Royale since
then.

As the saying goes:  the enemy of good enough is perfection.

Please, consider pushing the release to 1.0.

Thank you,

Justin Hill





- Message from Piotr Zarzycki  on Wed, 24
Apr 2019 11:56:47 +0200 -

  To: dev@royale.apache.org 

 Subject: Let's bump Royale version 
  to 1.0


Hi Team,

Lately, I’m working with Royale framework more and more. Once you know the
framework better from the inside your productivity skyrockets and it is
similar to what we had in Flex. The question comes up - why do we actually
cannot bump our version to 1.0? I’d like to see that happen with the
upcoming release or at least the following one.

What’s holding us back?

Is it lack of features? What if I don’t have some feature in 1.0, but I
will add it in 1.1? This is still fine in my opinion.

Or is it bugs? Because guess how people are seeing us after 5 years of
development and still with leading 0. They think “highly unstable”. And
because this continues for so long they think the project might, in fact,
be dead.

I would like to ask you Team to consider making our upcoming version (or
the following one) as 1.0.

Let’s find the answer in this thread. Post your arguments: “Why not?”, “Why
yes?”

Thanks,
--

Piotr Zarzycki

Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
*

Build failed in Jenkins: royale-asjs_MXTests #714

[Apache Royale CI Server]

See 


--
[...truncated 2.03 MB...]
[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

Build failed in Jenkins: royale-asjs_MXTests #713

[Apache Royale CI Server]

See 


Changes:

[carlosrovira] jewel-tabbar: when scrolling, fix hiding scrollbar on iOS 
devices that

[carlosrovira] jewel-tabbar: when scrolling, fix hiding scrollbar on iOS and 
IE11

--
[...truncated 2.03 MB...]
[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

Re: Let's bump Royale version to 1.0

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi Piotr,

great to bring this to the table. These are my thoughts;

As you, I'm feeling that Royale is ready for production, in fact we're
releasing tomorrow our first Royale App for a big client. So yes from that
point of view I see the technology is mature. But this is true at least for
Basic, Jewel UI Sets, and for AMF/RemoteObject, HTTPService, and other
parts.

In the other hand we have some parts on the way that will probably last for
more months, like MX/Spark emulation, Or components features still missing
in Jewel (DataGrid, Tree, Menu, Switch, finish themes,...), and others that
need to change (Jewel Table should not be in the current state for a 1.0
release).

There's a very cumbersome bug in application compilation that makes the
compiler a bad compilation. So when you run it, labels in buttons, drawers
and other places are empty. I think that bug should be find and solved
before a 1.0, since when it happens it gives a very bad sensation of
something not ok in the compiler. I think this could be some problems in
threadings. Normally when this happens (about 1 of 10 app compilations, you
can solve it by compiling again).

For example people is asking about video components, and other missing
parts, we could decide that could come in a later version.

Maybe we should make a list of things that should be in 1.0, and other list
of things that will not, but we can delay to 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, ...and more...

I think we should at least release a 0.9.6 soon, and if the Alex new
release system works, we could reach 1.0 in just 3 more release 1 per month.

Just my thoughts




El mié., 24 abr. 2019 a las 11:57, Piotr Zarzycki (<
piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>) escribió:

> Hi Team,
>
> Lately, I’m working with Royale framework more and more. Once you know the
> framework better from the inside your productivity skyrockets and it is
> similar to what we had in Flex. The question comes up - why do we actually
> cannot bump our version to 1.0? I’d like to see that happen with the
> upcoming release or at least the following one.
>
> What’s holding us back?
>
> Is it lack of features? What if I don’t have some feature in 1.0, but I
> will add it in 1.1? This is still fine in my opinion.
>
> Or is it bugs? Because guess how people are seeing us after 5 years of
> development and still with leading 0. They think “highly unstable”. And
> because this continues for so long they think the project might, in fact,
> be dead.
>
> I would like to ask you Team to consider making our upcoming version (or
> the following one) as 1.0.
>
> Let’s find the answer in this thread. Post your arguments: “Why not?”, “Why
> yes?”
>
> Thanks,
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> *
>


-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Build failed in Jenkins: royale-asjs_MXTests #712

[Apache Royale CI Server]

See 


--
[...truncated 2.04 MB...]
[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

[mxmlc] using source file: 

Let's bump Royale version to 1.0

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Hi Team,

Lately, I’m working with Royale framework more and more. Once you know the
framework better from the inside your productivity skyrockets and it is
similar to what we had in Flex. The question comes up - why do we actually
cannot bump our version to 1.0? I’d like to see that happen with the
upcoming release or at least the following one.

What’s holding us back?

Is it lack of features? What if I don’t have some feature in 1.0, but I
will add it in 1.1? This is still fine in my opinion.

Or is it bugs? Because guess how people are seeing us after 5 years of
development and still with leading 0. They think “highly unstable”. And
because this continues for so long they think the project might, in fact,
be dead.

I would like to ask you Team to consider making our upcoming version (or
the following one) as 1.0.

Let’s find the answer in this thread. Post your arguments: “Why not?”, “Why
yes?”

Thanks,
-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
*