Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

2020-04-17 Thread Alex Harui 
Only at the top level.  The maven build should have failed.  I just pushed the 
fix for it.

On 4/17/20, 2:57 AM, "Yishay Weiss"  wrote:

I don’t see any license headers to other md files. Aren’t they filtered out 
of the RAT check?

From: Carlos Rovira<mailto:carlosrov...@apache.org>
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 12:34 PM
To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
    Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

Hi Yishay,

not sure but probably the empty file added will cause RAT problems with
maven
maybe you should see if that happens and at least add a license header

About content, since is taken from the git history I think is ok

thanks



El vie., 17 abr. 2020 a las 10:14, Yishay Weiss ()
escribió:

> Ok Carlos, thanks. I created RELEASE_NOTES.md under compiler-build-tools.
> I think the main contributors since 1.1 [1] are Alex and Chris so it would
> be great if they could add their comments there.
>
>
>
> [1] 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.apache.org%2Fkmw0k&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C059fd98a81634407247d08d7e2b5ae1f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637227142248566154&sdata=WxQXt15d89UFzn6s%2Fx1szRvzEvrX%2FPadPyHWZqNvZfM%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
> *From:* Carlos Rovira 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 15, 2020 11:29:04 AM
> *To:* Apache Royale Development 
> *Subject:* Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0
>
>
>
> Hi Yishay,
>
> build tools and jburg was never released on its own before. Always was 
part
> of the global royale release. This is the first time we do this.
>
> Thanks
>
> El mié., 15 abr. 2020 a las 10:21, Yishay Weiss ()
> escribió:
>
> > I’ve just noticed the subject should be changed to
> >
> > [DISCUSS] Release Apache Royale Compiler Build Tools 1.2.0. Looks like a
> > bug in CI step 6.
> >
> > Anyway, the vote has passed. I haven’t seen previous announcements on
> > compiler build tools. Has this been done in the past? Can anyone point 
me
> > to an example?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > From: Greg Dove<mailto:greg.d...@gmail.com >
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 9:27 PM
> > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org
> >
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0
> >
> > fyi I can't get to this until my current EOD, about 12 hours from now. I
> > will remind myself what I need to do and check it then and vote, if the
> > voting is still open (I understand it may not be, as I think the
> threshold
> > was already passed).
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 6:03 AM Carlos Rovira 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Remember that we have Maven Wrapper [1] in our repo so if you don't
> have
> > > maven installed you can just use "mvnw" (Mac) or "mvnw.cmd" (Win) and
> > that
> > > will install maven for you :)
> > >
> > > [1] 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftakari%2Fmaven-wrapper&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C059fd98a81634407247d08d7e2b5ae1f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637227142248566154&sdata=2KdG3HXYRtkAP0vvvJgRtbVsUjk%2BXrp%2FQpCr7TUYEP0%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > > El mar., 14 abr. 2020 a las 18:05, Josh Tynjala (<
> > > joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev>)
> > > escribió:
> > >
> > > > If you're on Windows, and you happened to install Maven using the
> > > > Chocolatey package manager, you may need to tweak the
> > > ApproveBuildTools.xml
> > > > file to get it to work.
> > > >
> > > > Find this line:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > And change it to this:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > I think that most people will be fine, but I just wanted to mention
> it.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Josh Tynjala
> > > > Bowler Hat LLC 
<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbowlerhat.dev%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C059fd98a81634407247d08d7e2b5ae1f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178dece

RE: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

2020-04-17 Thread Yishay Weiss 
I don’t see any license headers to other md files. Aren’t they filtered out of 
the RAT check?

From: Carlos Rovira<mailto:carlosrov...@apache.org>
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 12:34 PM
To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

Hi Yishay,

not sure but probably the empty file added will cause RAT problems with
maven
maybe you should see if that happens and at least add a license header

About content, since is taken from the git history I think is ok

thanks



El vie., 17 abr. 2020 a las 10:14, Yishay Weiss ()
escribió:

> Ok Carlos, thanks. I created RELEASE_NOTES.md under compiler-build-tools.
> I think the main contributors since 1.1 [1] are Alex and Chris so it would
> be great if they could add their comments there.
>
>
>
> [1] https://paste.apache.org/kmw0k
>
>
>
> *From:* Carlos Rovira 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 15, 2020 11:29:04 AM
> *To:* Apache Royale Development 
> *Subject:* Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0
>
>
>
> Hi Yishay,
>
> build tools and jburg was never released on its own before. Always was part
> of the global royale release. This is the first time we do this.
>
> Thanks
>
> El mié., 15 abr. 2020 a las 10:21, Yishay Weiss ()
> escribió:
>
> > I’ve just noticed the subject should be changed to
> >
> > [DISCUSS] Release Apache Royale Compiler Build Tools 1.2.0. Looks like a
> > bug in CI step 6.
> >
> > Anyway, the vote has passed. I haven’t seen previous announcements on
> > compiler build tools. Has this been done in the past? Can anyone point me
> > to an example?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > From: Greg Dove<mailto:greg.d...@gmail.com >
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 9:27 PM
> > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org
> >
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0
> >
> > fyi I can't get to this until my current EOD, about 12 hours from now. I
> > will remind myself what I need to do and check it then and vote, if the
> > voting is still open (I understand it may not be, as I think the
> threshold
> > was already passed).
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 6:03 AM Carlos Rovira 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Remember that we have Maven Wrapper [1] in our repo so if you don't
> have
> > > maven installed you can just use "mvnw" (Mac) or "mvnw.cmd" (Win) and
> > that
> > > will install maven for you :)
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/takari/maven-wrapper
> > >
> > > El mar., 14 abr. 2020 a las 18:05, Josh Tynjala (<
> > > joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev>)
> > > escribió:
> > >
> > > > If you're on Windows, and you happened to install Maven using the
> > > > Chocolatey package manager, you may need to tweak the
> > > ApproveBuildTools.xml
> > > > file to get it to work.
> > > >
> > > > Find this line:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > And change it to this:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > I think that most people will be fine, but I just wanted to mention
> it.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Josh Tynjala
> > > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:33 PM  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > This is the discussion thread.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Yishay Weiss
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carlos Rovira
> > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
> *From: *Carlos Rovira 
> *Sent: *Wednesday, April 15, 2020 11:29 AM
> *To: *Apache Royale Development 
> *Subject: *Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0
>
>
>
> Hi Yishay,
>
> build tools and jburg was never released on its own before. Always was part
> of the global royale release. This is the first time we do this.
>
> Thanks
>
> El mié., 15 abr. 2020 a las 10:21, Yishay Weiss ()
> escribió:
>
> > I’ve just noticed the subject should be changed to
> >
> > [DISCUSS] Release Apache Royale Compiler Build Tools 1.2.0. Looks like a
> > bug in CI step 6.
> >
> > Anyway, the vote has passed. I haven’t seen previous announcements on
> > compiler build tools. Has this been done in the past? C

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

2020-04-17 Thread Carlos Rovira 
Hi Yishay,

not sure but probably the empty file added will cause RAT problems with
maven
maybe you should see if that happens and at least add a license header

About content, since is taken from the git history I think is ok

thanks



El vie., 17 abr. 2020 a las 10:14, Yishay Weiss ()
escribió:

> Ok Carlos, thanks. I created RELEASE_NOTES.md under compiler-build-tools.
> I think the main contributors since 1.1 [1] are Alex and Chris so it would
> be great if they could add their comments there.
>
>
>
> [1] https://paste.apache.org/kmw0k
>
>
>
> *From:* Carlos Rovira 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 15, 2020 11:29:04 AM
> *To:* Apache Royale Development 
> *Subject:* Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0
>
>
>
> Hi Yishay,
>
> build tools and jburg was never released on its own before. Always was part
> of the global royale release. This is the first time we do this.
>
> Thanks
>
> El mié., 15 abr. 2020 a las 10:21, Yishay Weiss ()
> escribió:
>
> > I’ve just noticed the subject should be changed to
> >
> > [DISCUSS] Release Apache Royale Compiler Build Tools 1.2.0. Looks like a
> > bug in CI step 6.
> >
> > Anyway, the vote has passed. I haven’t seen previous announcements on
> > compiler build tools. Has this been done in the past? Can anyone point me
> > to an example?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > From: Greg Dove<mailto:greg.d...@gmail.com >
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 9:27 PM
> > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org
> >
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0
> >
> > fyi I can't get to this until my current EOD, about 12 hours from now. I
> > will remind myself what I need to do and check it then and vote, if the
> > voting is still open (I understand it may not be, as I think the
> threshold
> > was already passed).
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 6:03 AM Carlos Rovira 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Remember that we have Maven Wrapper [1] in our repo so if you don't
> have
> > > maven installed you can just use "mvnw" (Mac) or "mvnw.cmd" (Win) and
> > that
> > > will install maven for you :)
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/takari/maven-wrapper
> > >
> > > El mar., 14 abr. 2020 a las 18:05, Josh Tynjala (<
> > > joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev>)
> > > escribió:
> > >
> > > > If you're on Windows, and you happened to install Maven using the
> > > > Chocolatey package manager, you may need to tweak the
> > > ApproveBuildTools.xml
> > > > file to get it to work.
> > > >
> > > > Find this line:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > And change it to this:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > I think that most people will be fine, but I just wanted to mention
> it.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Josh Tynjala
> > > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:33 PM  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > This is the discussion thread.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Yishay Weiss
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carlos Rovira
> > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
> *From: *Carlos Rovira 
> *Sent: *Wednesday, April 15, 2020 11:29 AM
> *To: *Apache Royale Development 
> *Subject: *Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0
>
>
>
> Hi Yishay,
>
> build tools and jburg was never released on its own before. Always was part
> of the global royale release. This is the first time we do this.
>
> Thanks
>
> El mié., 15 abr. 2020 a las 10:21, Yishay Weiss ()
> escribió:
>
> > I’ve just noticed the subject should be changed to
> >
> > [DISCUSS] Release Apache Royale Compiler Build Tools 1.2.0. Looks like a
> > bug in CI step 6.
> >
> > Anyway, the vote has passed. I haven’t seen previous announcements on
> > compiler build tools. Has this been done in the past? Can anyone point me
> > to an example?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > From: Greg Dove<mailto:greg.d...@gmail.com >
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 9:27 PM
> > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org
> >
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discus

RE: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

2020-04-17 Thread Yishay Weiss 
Ok Carlos, thanks. I created RELEASE_NOTES.md under compiler-build-tools. I 
think the main contributors since 1.1 [1] are Alex and Chris so it would be 
great if they could add their comments there.

[1] https://paste.apache.org/kmw0k


From: Carlos Rovira 
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 11:29:04 AM
To: Apache Royale Development 
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

Hi Yishay,

build tools and jburg was never released on its own before. Always was part
of the global royale release. This is the first time we do this.

Thanks

El mié., 15 abr. 2020 a las 10:21, Yishay Weiss ()
escribió:

> I’ve just noticed the subject should be changed to
>
> [DISCUSS] Release Apache Royale Compiler Build Tools 1.2.0. Looks like a
> bug in CI step 6.
>
> Anyway, the vote has passed. I haven’t seen previous announcements on
> compiler build tools. Has this been done in the past? Can anyone point me
> to an example?
>
> Thanks.
>
> From: Greg Dove<mailto:greg.d...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 9:27 PM
> To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0
>
> fyi I can't get to this until my current EOD, about 12 hours from now. I
> will remind myself what I need to do and check it then and vote, if the
> voting is still open (I understand it may not be, as I think the threshold
> was already passed).
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 6:03 AM Carlos Rovira 
> wrote:
>
> > Remember that we have Maven Wrapper [1] in our repo so if you don't have
> > maven installed you can just use "mvnw" (Mac) or "mvnw.cmd" (Win) and
> that
> > will install maven for you :)
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/takari/maven-wrapper
> >
> > El mar., 14 abr. 2020 a las 18:05, Josh Tynjala (<
> > joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev>)
> > escribió:
> >
> > > If you're on Windows, and you happened to install Maven using the
> > > Chocolatey package manager, you may need to tweak the
> > ApproveBuildTools.xml
> > > file to get it to work.
> > >
> > > Find this line:
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > And change it to this:
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > I think that most people will be fine, but I just wanted to mention it.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Josh Tynjala
> > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:33 PM  wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is the discussion thread.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Yishay Weiss
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >
>
>

--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
From: Carlos Rovira<mailto:carlosrov...@apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 11:29 AM
To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

Hi Yishay,

build tools and jburg was never released on its own before. Always was part
of the global royale release. This is the first time we do this.

Thanks

El mié., 15 abr. 2020 a las 10:21, Yishay Weiss ()
escribió:

> I’ve just noticed the subject should be changed to
>
> [DISCUSS] Release Apache Royale Compiler Build Tools 1.2.0. Looks like a
> bug in CI step 6.
>
> Anyway, the vote has passed. I haven’t seen previous announcements on
> compiler build tools. Has this been done in the past? Can anyone point me
> to an example?
>
> Thanks.
>
> From: Greg Dove<mailto:greg.d...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 9:27 PM
> To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0
>
> fyi I can't get to this until my current EOD, about 12 hours from now. I
> will remind myself what I need to do and check it then and vote, if the
> voting is still open (I understand it may not be, as I think the threshold
> was already passed).
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 6:03 AM Carlos Rovira 
> wrote:
>
> > Remember that we have Maven Wrapper [1] in our repo so if you don't have
> > maven installed you can just use "mvnw" (Mac) or "mvnw.cmd" (Win) and
> that
> > will install maven for you :)
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/takari/maven-wrapper
> >
> > El mar., 14 abr. 2020 a las 18:05, Josh Tynjala (<
> > joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev>)
> > escribió:
> >
> > > If you're on Windows, and you happened to install Maven using the
> > > Chocolatey package manager, you may need to tweak the
> > ApproveBuildTools.xml
> > > file to get it to work.
> > >
> > > Find this line:
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > And change it to this:
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > I think that most people will be fine, but I just wanted to mention it.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Josh Tynjala
> > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:33 PM  wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is the discussion thread.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Yishay Weiss
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >
>
>

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

2020-04-16 Thread Harbs 
Not sure what you mean.

Justin obviously felt a need to correct something and I wanted to make sure 
that no one interpreted that to mean that we don’t understand release protocol. 
That was my motivation to post a response.

Incidentally there was just a discussion on legal-discuss about 
shorter-than-72-hour votes.[1] The circumstances there are somewhat similar to 
our own.

Thanks,
Harbs

[1]https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r22a29d855ca2e7c93e49f5f62cdabae9ee31ce10482d9887e3afcacd%40%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E
 

> On Apr 16, 2020, at 12:10 PM, Christofer Dutz  
> wrote:
> 
> Geee ... why does everything have to go around in circles here? Is it always 
> about having the last word? At least it feels this way.

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

2020-04-16 Thread Christofer Dutz 
Geee ... why does everything have to go around in circles here? Is it always 
about having the last word? At least it feels this way.
(and yes, by replying I'm participating. I do see that, but I just wanted to 
get back on track ... and having started the discussion I felt I should)

In this case I think it doesn't matter how SHOULD should be interpreted and 
what any official rules are.

If you write: "the vote will stay open for 72 hours" ... well then you 
shouldn't close it early IMHO no matter what reasons.
If you write in the VOTE email "the vote will stay open for as long as it takes 
to get a majority of active PMCs to vote" then you probably don't have to.
Otherwise I'd just strip the "the vote will stay open for 72 hours" from the 
VOTE email, if you're not planning on respecting it.

But I guess it's me being a German ... you can't imagine how things escalate 
here if a Bus arrives (and leaves) the bus stop a few seconds too early. 
A fresh toilet paper delivery at the local supermarket is nothing compared to 
that ;-)

Chris


Am 16.04.20, 08:25 schrieb "Harbs" :

I think you misunderstood what Alex wrote.

We already had 4 +1 votes. Considering most of the active PMC members 
already weighed in on the release, the chances of there being more -1 votes 
than +1 votes is slim to none. That was the intent when mentioning most of the 
active PMC. No one meant to infer that a vote of half the PMC means anything.

I already linked to the legal definition of SHOULD lower down (or at least 
a link which mentions the definition).

I’ll note that Alex already mentioned that we’d be stricter on a “full” 
release which is something which I think we’re all in agreement with.

So, no need to be concerned. :-)

Thanks,
Harbs

> On Apr 16, 2020, at 12:11 AM, Justin Mclean  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The vote is not based on the majority of the active PMC, nor does it pass 
if more than half of the PMC vote. You can get non-binding votes from users 
that might bring up important issues and be useful to take into consideration.
> 
> The words SHOULD, MUST etc are used as defined in RFC 2119 [1].  SHOULD 
means the following:
> "3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
>   may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
>   particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
>   carefully weighed before choosing a different course.”
> 
> In this case I don’t think any harm has been done, but please take care 
on future votes.
> 
> Thanks,
> Justin
> 
> 
> 1. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

2020-04-15 Thread Harbs 
I think you misunderstood what Alex wrote.

We already had 4 +1 votes. Considering most of the active PMC members already 
weighed in on the release, the chances of there being more -1 votes than +1 
votes is slim to none. That was the intent when mentioning most of the active 
PMC. No one meant to infer that a vote of half the PMC means anything.

I already linked to the legal definition of SHOULD lower down (or at least a 
link which mentions the definition).

I’ll note that Alex already mentioned that we’d be stricter on a “full” release 
which is something which I think we’re all in agreement with.

So, no need to be concerned. :-)

Thanks,
Harbs

> On Apr 16, 2020, at 12:11 AM, Justin Mclean  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The vote is not based on the majority of the active PMC, nor does it pass if 
> more than half of the PMC vote. You can get non-binding votes from users that 
> might bring up important issues and be useful to take into consideration.
> 
> The words SHOULD, MUST etc are used as defined in RFC 2119 [1].  SHOULD means 
> the following:
> "3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
>   may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
>   particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
>   carefully weighed before choosing a different course.”
> 
> In this case I don’t think any harm has been done, but please take care on 
> future votes.
> 
> Thanks,
> Justin
> 
> 
> 1. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

2020-04-15 Thread Justin Mclean 
Hi,

The vote is not based on the majority of the active PMC, nor does it pass if 
more than half of the PMC vote. You can get non-binding votes from users that 
might bring up important issues and be useful to take into consideration.

The words SHOULD, MUST etc are used as defined in RFC 2119 [1].  SHOULD means 
the following:
"3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
   may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
   particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
   carefully weighed before choosing a different course.”

In this case I don’t think any harm has been done, but please take care on 
future votes.

Thanks,
Justin


1. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

2020-04-15 Thread Harbs 
Yes. Probably. I just added my +0 (considering I’m not going to have the time 
to look through this) to make that clear as well…

> On Apr 15, 2020, at 11:53 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> 
> Given the set of currently active PMC members we might already have majority. 
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

2020-04-15 Thread Alex Harui 
We have to push the build tools bits to Maven Central before starting the 
Royale SDK release process so the votes really shouldn't overlap.  However, I'm 
still testing the other CI build steps so we have at least through tonight (for 
me).

Given the set of currently active PMC members we might already have majority.  

Also, FWIW, I wouldn't bother with an announcement email for build tools.

-Alex

On 4/15/20, 1:42 PM, "Harbs"  wrote:

The policy is worded as "SHOULD remain open for 72 hours". It’s not “MUST” 
(which would be a complete blocker).[1]

If there are any -1 votes (which I seriously doubt there will be), we can 
always recall the release if objections are deemed serious enough.

The only practical purpose of this release is to release Royale 0.9.7 and 
by the time that release is voted on, the 72 hours will be over anyway.

I think Yishay can continue with the Royale release process.

My $0.02,
Harbs


[1]https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apache.org%2Flegal%2Frelease-policy.html%23release-approval&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C034e561966074e8ffef808d7e17d8704%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637225801582096967&sdata=MlPS45BvRKJgKQm7wSCUnBmEOYPe4rqOR%2BBWrjJHNAE%3D&reserved=0
 
<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apache.org%2Flegal%2Frelease-policy.html%23release-approval&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C034e561966074e8ffef808d7e17d8704%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637225801582096967&sdata=MlPS45BvRKJgKQm7wSCUnBmEOYPe4rqOR%2BBWrjJHNAE%3D&reserved=0>

> On Apr 15, 2020, at 11:29 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> 
> IIRC, It doesn't have to be 72 hours.  It can be more or less depending 
on how many PMC members vote and when.  We have something like 14 PMC members?  
If we get 8 +1 votes in an hour we could go right then, especially for build 
tools which our users will probably examine the packages.
> 
> For the SDK, even if we got a majority in the first day, I'd hold open 
for longer in case users do get to try it and find a big bug.  Plus, 
historically, we don't get 8 votes on the SDK in 72 hours, and sometimes not 
even 3 since it takes longer to examine the packages and test with them, so 
sometimes the vote stays open longer than 72 hours.
> 
> -Alex
> 
> On 4/15/20, 12:05 PM, "Greg Dove" mailto:greg.d...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>Yeah thanks for pointing that out Chris, Justin, I had interpreted it 
the
>wrong way also, I had understood it to mean that if the voting 
threshold
>passed it means that a 'result can be called'.
> 
>Maybe we should change the wording of:
>'This vote will be open for 72 hours or until a result can be called.'
>because as someone new to this, that to me does not capture that it 
should
>be at least 72 hours - I interpreted it as meaning that 72 hours was 
the
>maximum and it could be  less than 72 hours if the voting thresholds 
were
>crossed (without prior knowledge of the conventions). Just thinking 
about
>it, it of course makes sense to allow for a minimum reasonable period 
of
>scrutiny in this process. So that is (more) proof that I don't always 
think
>about things!
> 
> 
> 
>On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 9:57 PM Carlos Rovira 
>wrote:
> 
>> Hi Chris, and Justin,
>> 
>> thanks for the pointers :)
>> 
>> Carlos
>> 
>> 
>> El mié., 15 abr. 2020 a las 11:46, Yishay Weiss 
()
>> escribió:
>> 
>>> Hi Chris,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Greg did vote before I announced the result. Anyway, for good measure,
>>> let’s wait another 36 hours and see if anyone has objections to the
>> result.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *From:* Christofer Dutz 
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 15, 2020 12:26:50 PM
>>> *To:* dev@royale.apache.org 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> Well theoretically for example Greg - who noted he'll be able to do a
>>> review soon - could theoretically do the review and find something you
>>> folks didn't.
>>> So I would suggest to keep t

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

2020-04-15 Thread Harbs 
FWIW, “shall” (which is used elsewhere on the release policy page) is also a 
mandate which cannot be violated, but “should” is not.[1][2]

[1]https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/shall 
<https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/shall>
[2]https://english.stackexchange.com/a/16468

> On Apr 15, 2020, at 11:42 PM, Harbs  wrote:
> 
> The policy is worded as "SHOULD remain open for 72 hours". It’s not “MUST” 
> (which would be a complete blocker).[1]
> 
> If there are any -1 votes (which I seriously doubt there will be), we can 
> always recall the release if objections are deemed serious enough.
> 
> The only practical purpose of this release is to release Royale 0.9.7 and by 
> the time that release is voted on, the 72 hours will be over anyway.
> 
> I think Yishay can continue with the Royale release process.
> 
> My $0.02,
> Harbs
> 
> [1]https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval 
> <https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval>
> 
>> On Apr 15, 2020, at 11:29 PM, Alex Harui > <mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>> wrote:
>> 
>> IIRC, It doesn't have to be 72 hours.  It can be more or less depending on 
>> how many PMC members vote and when.  We have something like 14 PMC members?  
>> If we get 8 +1 votes in an hour we could go right then, especially for build 
>> tools which our users will probably examine the packages.
>> 
>> For the SDK, even if we got a majority in the first day, I'd hold open for 
>> longer in case users do get to try it and find a big bug.  Plus, 
>> historically, we don't get 8 votes on the SDK in 72 hours, and sometimes not 
>> even 3 since it takes longer to examine the packages and test with them, so 
>> sometimes the vote stays open longer than 72 hours.
>> 
>> -Alex
>> 
>> On 4/15/20, 12:05 PM, "Greg Dove" > <mailto:greg.d...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>Yeah thanks for pointing that out Chris, Justin, I had interpreted it the
>>wrong way also, I had understood it to mean that if the voting threshold
>>passed it means that a 'result can be called'.
>> 
>>Maybe we should change the wording of:
>>'This vote will be open for 72 hours or until a result can be called.'
>>because as someone new to this, that to me does not capture that it should
>>be at least 72 hours - I interpreted it as meaning that 72 hours was the
>>maximum and it could be  less than 72 hours if the voting thresholds were
>>crossed (without prior knowledge of the conventions). Just thinking about
>>it, it of course makes sense to allow for a minimum reasonable period of
>>scrutiny in this process. So that is (more) proof that I don't always 
>> think
>>about things!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 9:57 PM Carlos Rovira > <mailto:carlosrov...@apache.org>>
>>wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Chris, and Justin,
>>> 
>>> thanks for the pointers :)
>>> 
>>> Carlos
>>> 
>>> 
>>> El mié., 15 abr. 2020 a las 11:46, Yishay Weiss (>> <mailto:yishayj...@hotmail.com>>)
>>> escribió:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Greg did vote before I announced the result. Anyway, for good measure,
>>>> let’s wait another 36 hours and see if anyone has objections to the
>>> result.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> *From:* Christofer Dutz >>> <mailto:christofer.d...@c-ware.de>>
>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 15, 2020 12:26:50 PM
>>>> *To:* dev@royale.apache.org <mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> 
>>>> mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> Well theoretically for example Greg - who noted he'll be able to do a
>>>> review soon - could theoretically do the review and find something you
>>>> folks didn't.
>>>> So I would suggest to keep the vote open for the 72 hours ... especially
>>>> as you announced the votes to stay open for 72 hours.
>>>> 
>>>> Was just jumping in from the side-lines, just in case you just overlooked
>>>> this.
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

2020-04-15 Thread Harbs 
The policy is worded as "SHOULD remain open for 72 hours". It’s not “MUST” 
(which would be a complete blocker).[1]

If there are any -1 votes (which I seriously doubt there will be), we can 
always recall the release if objections are deemed serious enough.

The only practical purpose of this release is to release Royale 0.9.7 and by 
the time that release is voted on, the 72 hours will be over anyway.

I think Yishay can continue with the Royale release process.

My $0.02,
Harbs

[1]https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval 
<https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval>

> On Apr 15, 2020, at 11:29 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> 
> IIRC, It doesn't have to be 72 hours.  It can be more or less depending on 
> how many PMC members vote and when.  We have something like 14 PMC members?  
> If we get 8 +1 votes in an hour we could go right then, especially for build 
> tools which our users will probably examine the packages.
> 
> For the SDK, even if we got a majority in the first day, I'd hold open for 
> longer in case users do get to try it and find a big bug.  Plus, 
> historically, we don't get 8 votes on the SDK in 72 hours, and sometimes not 
> even 3 since it takes longer to examine the packages and test with them, so 
> sometimes the vote stays open longer than 72 hours.
> 
> -Alex
> 
> On 4/15/20, 12:05 PM, "Greg Dove"  <mailto:greg.d...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>Yeah thanks for pointing that out Chris, Justin, I had interpreted it the
>wrong way also, I had understood it to mean that if the voting threshold
>passed it means that a 'result can be called'.
> 
>Maybe we should change the wording of:
>'This vote will be open for 72 hours or until a result can be called.'
>because as someone new to this, that to me does not capture that it should
>be at least 72 hours - I interpreted it as meaning that 72 hours was the
>maximum and it could be  less than 72 hours if the voting thresholds were
>crossed (without prior knowledge of the conventions). Just thinking about
>it, it of course makes sense to allow for a minimum reasonable period of
>scrutiny in this process. So that is (more) proof that I don't always think
>about things!
> 
> 
> 
>On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 9:57 PM Carlos Rovira 
>wrote:
> 
>> Hi Chris, and Justin,
>> 
>> thanks for the pointers :)
>> 
>> Carlos
>> 
>> 
>> El mié., 15 abr. 2020 a las 11:46, Yishay Weiss ()
>> escribió:
>> 
>>> Hi Chris,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Greg did vote before I announced the result. Anyway, for good measure,
>>> let’s wait another 36 hours and see if anyone has objections to the
>> result.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *From:* Christofer Dutz 
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 15, 2020 12:26:50 PM
>>> *To:* dev@royale.apache.org 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> Well theoretically for example Greg - who noted he'll be able to do a
>>> review soon - could theoretically do the review and find something you
>>> folks didn't.
>>> So I would suggest to keep the vote open for the 72 hours ... especially
>>> as you announced the votes to stay open for 72 hours.
>>> 
>>> Was just jumping in from the side-lines, just in case you just overlooked
>>> this.
>>> 
>>> Chris
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Am 15.04.20, 11:02 schrieb "Carlos Rovira" :
>>> 
>>>Hi Chris,
>>> 
>>>unless this is against some Apache rules the vote thread state this:
>>> 
>>>"This vote will be open for 72 hours or until a result can be called.
>>> 
>>>The vote passes if there is:
>>>- At least 3 +1 votes from the PMC
>>>- More positive votes than negative votes"
>>> 
>>>So this seems ok, right?
>>> 
>>>Thanks
>>> 
>>>Carlos
>>> 
>>> 
>>>El mié., 15 abr. 2020 a las 10:47, Yishay Weiss (<
>>> yishayj...@hotmail.com>)
>>>escribió:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>> 
>>>> I may have made a mistake here, but I thought it was ok since we
>> had
>>>> enough +1 votes. As I understood it, that’s a sufficient condition.
&

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

2020-04-15 Thread Alex Harui 
IIRC, It doesn't have to be 72 hours.  It can be more or less depending on how 
many PMC members vote and when.  We have something like 14 PMC members?  If we 
get 8 +1 votes in an hour we could go right then, especially for build tools 
which our users will probably examine the packages.

For the SDK, even if we got a majority in the first day, I'd hold open for 
longer in case users do get to try it and find a big bug.  Plus, historically, 
we don't get 8 votes on the SDK in 72 hours, and sometimes not even 3 since it 
takes longer to examine the packages and test with them, so sometimes the vote 
stays open longer than 72 hours.

-Alex

On 4/15/20, 12:05 PM, "Greg Dove"  wrote:

Yeah thanks for pointing that out Chris, Justin, I had interpreted it the
wrong way also, I had understood it to mean that if the voting threshold
passed it means that a 'result can be called'.

Maybe we should change the wording of:
'This vote will be open for 72 hours or until a result can be called.'
because as someone new to this, that to me does not capture that it should
be at least 72 hours - I interpreted it as meaning that 72 hours was the
maximum and it could be  less than 72 hours if the voting thresholds were
crossed (without prior knowledge of the conventions). Just thinking about
it, it of course makes sense to allow for a minimum reasonable period of
scrutiny in this process. So that is (more) proof that I don't always think
about things!



On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 9:57 PM Carlos Rovira 
wrote:

> Hi Chris, and Justin,
>
> thanks for the pointers :)
>
> Carlos
>
>
> El mié., 15 abr. 2020 a las 11:46, Yishay Weiss ()
> escribió:
>
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> >
> >
> > Greg did vote before I announced the result. Anyway, for good measure,
> > let’s wait another 36 hours and see if anyone has objections to the
> result.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
    > >
    > > *From:* Christofer Dutz 
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 15, 2020 12:26:50 PM
> > *To:* dev@royale.apache.org 
> > *Subject:* Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Well theoretically for example Greg - who noted he'll be able to do a
> > review soon - could theoretically do the review and find something you
> > folks didn't.
> > So I would suggest to keep the vote open for the 72 hours ... especially
> > as you announced the votes to stay open for 72 hours.
> >
> > Was just jumping in from the side-lines, just in case you just 
overlooked
> > this.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > Am 15.04.20, 11:02 schrieb "Carlos Rovira" :
> >
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > unless this is against some Apache rules the vote thread state this:
> >
> > "This vote will be open for 72 hours or until a result can be 
called.
> >
> > The vote passes if there is:
> > - At least 3 +1 votes from the PMC
> > - More positive votes than negative votes"
> >
> > So this seems ok, right?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Carlos
> >
> >
> > El mié., 15 abr. 2020 a las 10:47, Yishay Weiss (<
> > yishayj...@hotmail.com>)
> > escribió:
> >
> > > Hi Chris,
> > >
> > > I may have made a mistake here, but I thought it was ok since we
> had
    > > > enough +1 votes. As I understood it, that’s a sufficient 
condition.
> > Trying
> > > to speed things up, but my apologies if this somehow compromises
> > Apache
> > > rules.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Yishay
> > >
> > > From: Christofer Dutz<mailto:christofer.d...@c-ware.de
> > >
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 11:31 AM
> > > To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0
> > >
> > > Royale not sticking to the typical 72 hour voting timeframe?
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > Am 15.04.20, 10:29 sch

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

2020-04-15 Thread Greg Dove 
Yeah thanks for pointing that out Chris, Justin, I had interpreted it the
wrong way also, I had understood it to mean that if the voting threshold
passed it means that a 'result can be called'.

Maybe we should change the wording of:
'This vote will be open for 72 hours or until a result can be called.'
because as someone new to this, that to me does not capture that it should
be at least 72 hours - I interpreted it as meaning that 72 hours was the
maximum and it could be  less than 72 hours if the voting thresholds were
crossed (without prior knowledge of the conventions). Just thinking about
it, it of course makes sense to allow for a minimum reasonable period of
scrutiny in this process. So that is (more) proof that I don't always think
about things!



On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 9:57 PM Carlos Rovira 
wrote:

> Hi Chris, and Justin,
>
> thanks for the pointers :)
>
> Carlos
>
>
> El mié., 15 abr. 2020 a las 11:46, Yishay Weiss ()
> escribió:
>
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> >
> >
> > Greg did vote before I announced the result. Anyway, for good measure,
> > let’s wait another 36 hours and see if anyone has objections to the
> result.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Christofer Dutz 
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 15, 2020 12:26:50 PM
> > *To:* dev@royale.apache.org 
> > *Subject:* Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Well theoretically for example Greg - who noted he'll be able to do a
> > review soon - could theoretically do the review and find something you
> > folks didn't.
> > So I would suggest to keep the vote open for the 72 hours ... especially
> > as you announced the votes to stay open for 72 hours.
> >
> > Was just jumping in from the side-lines, just in case you just overlooked
> > this.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > Am 15.04.20, 11:02 schrieb "Carlos Rovira" :
> >
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > unless this is against some Apache rules the vote thread state this:
> >
> > "This vote will be open for 72 hours or until a result can be called.
> >
> > The vote passes if there is:
> > - At least 3 +1 votes from the PMC
> > - More positive votes than negative votes"
> >
> > So this seems ok, right?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Carlos
> >
> >
> > El mié., 15 abr. 2020 a las 10:47, Yishay Weiss (<
> > yishayj...@hotmail.com>)
> > escribió:
> >
> > > Hi Chris,
> > >
> > > I may have made a mistake here, but I thought it was ok since we
> had
> > > enough +1 votes. As I understood it, that’s a sufficient condition.
> > Trying
> > > to speed things up, but my apologies if this somehow compromises
> > Apache
> > > rules.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Yishay
> > >
> > > From: Christofer Dutz<mailto:christofer.d...@c-ware.de
> > >
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 11:31 AM
> > > To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0
> > >
> > > Royale not sticking to the typical 72 hour voting timeframe?
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > Am 15.04.20, 10:29 schrieb "Carlos Rovira" <
> carlosrov...@apache.org
> > >:
> > >
> > > Hi Yishay,
> > >
> > > build tools and jburg was never released on its own before.
> > Always was
> > > part
> > > of the global royale release. This is the first time we do
> this.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > El mié., 15 abr. 2020 a las 10:21, Yishay Weiss (<
> > > yishayj...@hotmail.com>)
> > > escribió:
> > >
> > > > I’ve just noticed the subject should be changed to
> > > >
> > > > [DISCUSS] Release Apache Royale Compiler Build Tools 1.2.0.
> > Looks
> > > like a
> > > > bug in CI step 6.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, the vote has passed. I haven’t seen previous
> > announcements on
> > > > compiler build tools. Has this been done in the past? Can
> > anyone
> > > point me
> >

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

2020-04-15 Thread Carlos Rovira 
Hi Chris, and Justin,

thanks for the pointers :)

Carlos


El mié., 15 abr. 2020 a las 11:46, Yishay Weiss ()
escribió:

> Hi Chris,
>
>
>
> Greg did vote before I announced the result. Anyway, for good measure,
> let’s wait another 36 hours and see if anyone has objections to the result.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Christofer Dutz 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 15, 2020 12:26:50 PM
> *To:* dev@royale.apache.org 
> *Subject:* Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Well theoretically for example Greg - who noted he'll be able to do a
> review soon - could theoretically do the review and find something you
> folks didn't.
> So I would suggest to keep the vote open for the 72 hours ... especially
> as you announced the votes to stay open for 72 hours.
>
> Was just jumping in from the side-lines, just in case you just overlooked
> this.
>
> Chris
>
>
> Am 15.04.20, 11:02 schrieb "Carlos Rovira" :
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> unless this is against some Apache rules the vote thread state this:
>
> "This vote will be open for 72 hours or until a result can be called.
>
> The vote passes if there is:
> - At least 3 +1 votes from the PMC
> - More positive votes than negative votes"
>
> So this seems ok, right?
>
> Thanks
>
> Carlos
>
>
> El mié., 15 abr. 2020 a las 10:47, Yishay Weiss (<
> yishayj...@hotmail.com>)
> escribió:
>
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > I may have made a mistake here, but I thought it was ok since we had
> > enough +1 votes. As I understood it, that’s a sufficient condition.
> Trying
> > to speed things up, but my apologies if this somehow compromises
> Apache
> > rules.
> >
>     > Thanks,
> > Yishay
> >
> > From: Christofer Dutz<mailto:christofer.d...@c-ware.de
> >
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 11:31 AM
> > To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0
> >
> > Royale not sticking to the typical 72 hour voting timeframe?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > Am 15.04.20, 10:29 schrieb "Carlos Rovira"  >:
> >
> > Hi Yishay,
> >
> > build tools and jburg was never released on its own before.
> Always was
> > part
> > of the global royale release. This is the first time we do this.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > El mié., 15 abr. 2020 a las 10:21, Yishay Weiss (<
> > yishayj...@hotmail.com>)
> > escribió:
> >
> > > I’ve just noticed the subject should be changed to
> > >
> > > [DISCUSS] Release Apache Royale Compiler Build Tools 1.2.0.
> Looks
> > like a
> > > bug in CI step 6.
>     >     >
>     > > Anyway, the vote has passed. I haven’t seen previous
> announcements on
> > > compiler build tools. Has this been done in the past? Can
> anyone
> > point me
> > > to an example?
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > From: Greg Dove<mailto:greg.d...@gmail.com
> >
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 9:27 PM
> > > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org
> >
> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0
> > >
> > > fyi I can't get to this until my current EOD, about 12 hours
> from
> > now. I
> > > will remind myself what I need to do and check it then and
> vote, if
> > the
> > > voting is still open (I understand it may not be, as I think
> the
> > threshold
> > > was already passed).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 6:03 AM Carlos Rovira <
> > carlosrov...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Remember that we have Maven Wrapper [1] in our repo so if you
> > don't have
> > > > maven installed you can just use "mvnw" (Mac) or "mvnw.cmd"
> (Win)
> > and
> > > that
> > > > will install maven for you :)
> > > >
> > &

RE: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

2020-04-15 Thread Yishay Weiss 
Hi Chris,

Greg did vote before I announced the result. Anyway, for good measure, let’s 
wait another 36 hours and see if anyone has objections to the result.

Thanks.




From: Christofer Dutz 
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 12:26:50 PM
To: dev@royale.apache.org 
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

Hi all,

Well theoretically for example Greg - who noted he'll be able to do a review 
soon - could theoretically do the review and find something you folks didn't.
So I would suggest to keep the vote open for the 72 hours ... especially as you 
announced the votes to stay open for 72 hours.

Was just jumping in from the side-lines, just in case you just overlooked this.

Chris


Am 15.04.20, 11:02 schrieb "Carlos Rovira" :

Hi Chris,

unless this is against some Apache rules the vote thread state this:

"This vote will be open for 72 hours or until a result can be called.

The vote passes if there is:
- At least 3 +1 votes from the PMC
- More positive votes than negative votes"

So this seems ok, right?

Thanks

Carlos


El mié., 15 abr. 2020 a las 10:47, Yishay Weiss ()
escribió:

> Hi Chris,
>
> I may have made a mistake here, but I thought it was ok since we had
> enough +1 votes. As I understood it, that’s a sufficient condition. Trying
> to speed things up, but my apologies if this somehow compromises Apache
> rules.
>
> Thanks,
> Yishay
>
> From: Christofer Dutz<mailto:christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 11:31 AM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0
>
> Royale not sticking to the typical 72 hour voting timeframe?
>
> Chris
>
> Am 15.04.20, 10:29 schrieb "Carlos Rovira" :
>
> Hi Yishay,
>
> build tools and jburg was never released on its own before. Always was
> part
> of the global royale release. This is the first time we do this.
>
> Thanks
>
> El mié., 15 abr. 2020 a las 10:21, Yishay Weiss (<
> yishayj...@hotmail.com>)
> escribió:
>
> > I’ve just noticed the subject should be changed to
> >
> > [DISCUSS] Release Apache Royale Compiler Build Tools 1.2.0. Looks
> like a
> > bug in CI step 6.
> >
> > Anyway, the vote has passed. I haven’t seen previous announcements 
on
> > compiler build tools. Has this been done in the past? Can anyone
> point me
> > to an example?
> >
> > Thanks.
    >     >
> > From: Greg Dove<mailto:greg.d...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 9:27 PM
> > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0
> >
> > fyi I can't get to this until my current EOD, about 12 hours from
> now. I
> > will remind myself what I need to do and check it then and vote, if
> the
> > voting is still open (I understand it may not be, as I think the
> threshold
> > was already passed).
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 6:03 AM Carlos Rovira <
> carlosrov...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Remember that we have Maven Wrapper [1] in our repo so if you
> don't have
> > > maven installed you can just use "mvnw" (Mac) or "mvnw.cmd" (Win)
> and
> > that
> > > will install maven for you :)
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/takari/maven-wrapper
> > >
> > > El mar., 14 abr. 2020 a las 18:05, Josh Tynjala (<
> > > joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev>)
> > > escribió:
> > >
> > > > If you're on Windows, and you happened to install Maven using 
the
> > > > Chocolatey package manager, you may need to tweak the
> > > ApproveBuildTools.xml
> > > > file to get it to work.
> > > >
> > > > Find this line:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > And change it to this:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > I think that most people

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

2020-04-15 Thread Justin Mclean 
Hi,

It is customary to wait 72 hours on votes release, and a vote is not over when 
you get 3 +1 votes. See [1][2], note "Release votes SHOULD remain open for at 
least 72 hours.” You want to give people time to review the release in case 
issues are found. You may use less time if there is an urgent security issue or 
something similar.

Thanks,
Justin

1. https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes
2 http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

2020-04-15 Thread Christofer Dutz 
Hi all,

Well theoretically for example Greg - who noted he'll be able to do a review 
soon - could theoretically do the review and find something you folks didn't.
So I would suggest to keep the vote open for the 72 hours ... especially as you 
announced the votes to stay open for 72 hours.

Was just jumping in from the side-lines, just in case you just overlooked this.

Chris


Am 15.04.20, 11:02 schrieb "Carlos Rovira" :

Hi Chris,

unless this is against some Apache rules the vote thread state this:

"This vote will be open for 72 hours or until a result can be called.

The vote passes if there is:
- At least 3 +1 votes from the PMC
- More positive votes than negative votes"

So this seems ok, right?

Thanks

Carlos


El mié., 15 abr. 2020 a las 10:47, Yishay Weiss ()
escribió:

> Hi Chris,
>
> I may have made a mistake here, but I thought it was ok since we had
> enough +1 votes. As I understood it, that’s a sufficient condition. Trying
> to speed things up, but my apologies if this somehow compromises Apache
> rules.
>
> Thanks,
> Yishay
>
> From: Christofer Dutz<mailto:christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 11:31 AM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0
>
> Royale not sticking to the typical 72 hour voting timeframe?
>
> Chris
>
> Am 15.04.20, 10:29 schrieb "Carlos Rovira" :
>
> Hi Yishay,
>
> build tools and jburg was never released on its own before. Always was
> part
> of the global royale release. This is the first time we do this.
>
> Thanks
>
> El mié., 15 abr. 2020 a las 10:21, Yishay Weiss (<
> yishayj...@hotmail.com>)
> escribió:
>
> > I’ve just noticed the subject should be changed to
> >
> > [DISCUSS] Release Apache Royale Compiler Build Tools 1.2.0. Looks
> like a
> > bug in CI step 6.
> >
> > Anyway, the vote has passed. I haven’t seen previous announcements 
on
> > compiler build tools. Has this been done in the past? Can anyone
> point me
> > to an example?
> >
> > Thanks.
    >     >
> > From: Greg Dove<mailto:greg.d...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 9:27 PM
> > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0
> >
> > fyi I can't get to this until my current EOD, about 12 hours from
> now. I
> > will remind myself what I need to do and check it then and vote, if
> the
> > voting is still open (I understand it may not be, as I think the
> threshold
> > was already passed).
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 6:03 AM Carlos Rovira <
> carlosrov...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Remember that we have Maven Wrapper [1] in our repo so if you
> don't have
> > > maven installed you can just use "mvnw" (Mac) or "mvnw.cmd" (Win)
> and
> > that
> > > will install maven for you :)
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/takari/maven-wrapper
> > >
> > > El mar., 14 abr. 2020 a las 18:05, Josh Tynjala (<
> > > joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev>)
> > > escribió:
> > >
> > > > If you're on Windows, and you happened to install Maven using 
the
> > > > Chocolatey package manager, you may need to tweak the
> > > ApproveBuildTools.xml
> > > > file to get it to work.
> > > >
> > > > Find this line:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > And change it to this:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > I think that most people will be fine, but I just wanted to
> mention it.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Josh Tynjala
> > > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:33 PM 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > This is the discussion thread.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Yishay Weiss
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carlos Rovira
> > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>
>

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

2020-04-15 Thread Carlos Rovira 
Hi Chris,

unless this is against some Apache rules the vote thread state this:

"This vote will be open for 72 hours or until a result can be called.

The vote passes if there is:
- At least 3 +1 votes from the PMC
- More positive votes than negative votes"

So this seems ok, right?

Thanks

Carlos


El mié., 15 abr. 2020 a las 10:47, Yishay Weiss ()
escribió:

> Hi Chris,
>
> I may have made a mistake here, but I thought it was ok since we had
> enough +1 votes. As I understood it, that’s a sufficient condition. Trying
> to speed things up, but my apologies if this somehow compromises Apache
> rules.
>
> Thanks,
> Yishay
>
> From: Christofer Dutz<mailto:christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 11:31 AM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0
>
> Royale not sticking to the typical 72 hour voting timeframe?
>
> Chris
>
> Am 15.04.20, 10:29 schrieb "Carlos Rovira" :
>
> Hi Yishay,
>
> build tools and jburg was never released on its own before. Always was
> part
> of the global royale release. This is the first time we do this.
>
> Thanks
>
> El mié., 15 abr. 2020 a las 10:21, Yishay Weiss (<
> yishayj...@hotmail.com>)
> escribió:
>
> > I’ve just noticed the subject should be changed to
> >
> > [DISCUSS] Release Apache Royale Compiler Build Tools 1.2.0. Looks
> like a
> > bug in CI step 6.
> >
> > Anyway, the vote has passed. I haven’t seen previous announcements on
> > compiler build tools. Has this been done in the past? Can anyone
> point me
> > to an example?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > From: Greg Dove<mailto:greg.d...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 9:27 PM
> > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0
> >
> > fyi I can't get to this until my current EOD, about 12 hours from
> now. I
> > will remind myself what I need to do and check it then and vote, if
> the
> > voting is still open (I understand it may not be, as I think the
> threshold
> > was already passed).
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 6:03 AM Carlos Rovira <
> carlosrov...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Remember that we have Maven Wrapper [1] in our repo so if you
> don't have
> > > maven installed you can just use "mvnw" (Mac) or "mvnw.cmd" (Win)
> and
> > that
> > > will install maven for you :)
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/takari/maven-wrapper
> > >
> > > El mar., 14 abr. 2020 a las 18:05, Josh Tynjala (<
> > > joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev>)
> > > escribió:
> > >
> > > > If you're on Windows, and you happened to install Maven using the
> > > > Chocolatey package manager, you may need to tweak the
> > > ApproveBuildTools.xml
> > > > file to get it to work.
> > > >
> > > > Find this line:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > And change it to this:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > I think that most people will be fine, but I just wanted to
> mention it.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Josh Tynjala
> > > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:33 PM 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > This is the discussion thread.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Yishay Weiss
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carlos Rovira
> > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>
>

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

RE: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

2020-04-15 Thread Yishay Weiss 
Hi Chris,

I may have made a mistake here, but I thought it was ok since we had enough +1 
votes. As I understood it, that’s a sufficient condition. Trying to speed 
things up, but my apologies if this somehow compromises Apache rules.

Thanks,
Yishay

From: Christofer Dutz<mailto:christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 11:31 AM
To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

Royale not sticking to the typical 72 hour voting timeframe?

Chris

Am 15.04.20, 10:29 schrieb "Carlos Rovira" :

Hi Yishay,

build tools and jburg was never released on its own before. Always was part
of the global royale release. This is the first time we do this.

Thanks

El mié., 15 abr. 2020 a las 10:21, Yishay Weiss ()
escribió:

> I’ve just noticed the subject should be changed to
>
> [DISCUSS] Release Apache Royale Compiler Build Tools 1.2.0. Looks like a
> bug in CI step 6.
>
> Anyway, the vote has passed. I haven’t seen previous announcements on
> compiler build tools. Has this been done in the past? Can anyone point me
> to an example?
>
> Thanks.
>
> From: Greg Dove<mailto:greg.d...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 9:27 PM
> To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0
>
> fyi I can't get to this until my current EOD, about 12 hours from now. I
> will remind myself what I need to do and check it then and vote, if the
> voting is still open (I understand it may not be, as I think the threshold
> was already passed).
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 6:03 AM Carlos Rovira 
> wrote:
>
> > Remember that we have Maven Wrapper [1] in our repo so if you don't have
> > maven installed you can just use "mvnw" (Mac) or "mvnw.cmd" (Win) and
> that
> > will install maven for you :)
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/takari/maven-wrapper
> >
> > El mar., 14 abr. 2020 a las 18:05, Josh Tynjala (<
> > joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev>)
> > escribió:
> >
> > > If you're on Windows, and you happened to install Maven using the
> > > Chocolatey package manager, you may need to tweak the
> > ApproveBuildTools.xml
> > > file to get it to work.
> > >
> > > Find this line:
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > And change it to this:
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > I think that most people will be fine, but I just wanted to mention 
it.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Josh Tynjala
> > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:33 PM  wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is the discussion thread.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Yishay Weiss
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >
>
>

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

2020-04-15 Thread Christofer Dutz 
Royale not sticking to the typical 72 hour voting timeframe?

Chris

Am 15.04.20, 10:29 schrieb "Carlos Rovira" :

Hi Yishay,

build tools and jburg was never released on its own before. Always was part
of the global royale release. This is the first time we do this.

Thanks

El mié., 15 abr. 2020 a las 10:21, Yishay Weiss ()
escribió:

> I’ve just noticed the subject should be changed to
>
> [DISCUSS] Release Apache Royale Compiler Build Tools 1.2.0. Looks like a
> bug in CI step 6.
>
> Anyway, the vote has passed. I haven’t seen previous announcements on
> compiler build tools. Has this been done in the past? Can anyone point me
> to an example?
>
> Thanks.
>
> From: Greg Dove<mailto:greg.d...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 9:27 PM
> To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0
>
> fyi I can't get to this until my current EOD, about 12 hours from now. I
> will remind myself what I need to do and check it then and vote, if the
> voting is still open (I understand it may not be, as I think the threshold
> was already passed).
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 6:03 AM Carlos Rovira 
> wrote:
>
> > Remember that we have Maven Wrapper [1] in our repo so if you don't have
> > maven installed you can just use "mvnw" (Mac) or "mvnw.cmd" (Win) and
> that
> > will install maven for you :)
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/takari/maven-wrapper
> >
> > El mar., 14 abr. 2020 a las 18:05, Josh Tynjala (<
> > joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev>)
> > escribió:
> >
> > > If you're on Windows, and you happened to install Maven using the
> > > Chocolatey package manager, you may need to tweak the
> > ApproveBuildTools.xml
> > > file to get it to work.
> > >
> > > Find this line:
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > And change it to this:
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > I think that most people will be fine, but I just wanted to mention 
it.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Josh Tynjala
> > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:33 PM  wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is the discussion thread.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Yishay Weiss
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >
>
>

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

2020-04-15 Thread Carlos Rovira 
Hi Yishay,

build tools and jburg was never released on its own before. Always was part
of the global royale release. This is the first time we do this.

Thanks

El mié., 15 abr. 2020 a las 10:21, Yishay Weiss ()
escribió:

> I’ve just noticed the subject should be changed to
>
> [DISCUSS] Release Apache Royale Compiler Build Tools 1.2.0. Looks like a
> bug in CI step 6.
>
> Anyway, the vote has passed. I haven’t seen previous announcements on
> compiler build tools. Has this been done in the past? Can anyone point me
> to an example?
>
> Thanks.
>
> From: Greg Dove<mailto:greg.d...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 9:27 PM
> To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0
>
> fyi I can't get to this until my current EOD, about 12 hours from now. I
> will remind myself what I need to do and check it then and vote, if the
> voting is still open (I understand it may not be, as I think the threshold
> was already passed).
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 6:03 AM Carlos Rovira 
> wrote:
>
> > Remember that we have Maven Wrapper [1] in our repo so if you don't have
> > maven installed you can just use "mvnw" (Mac) or "mvnw.cmd" (Win) and
> that
> > will install maven for you :)
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/takari/maven-wrapper
> >
> > El mar., 14 abr. 2020 a las 18:05, Josh Tynjala (<
> > joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev>)
> > escribió:
> >
> > > If you're on Windows, and you happened to install Maven using the
> > > Chocolatey package manager, you may need to tweak the
> > ApproveBuildTools.xml
> > > file to get it to work.
> > >
> > > Find this line:
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > And change it to this:
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > I think that most people will be fine, but I just wanted to mention it.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Josh Tynjala
> > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:33 PM  wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is the discussion thread.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Yishay Weiss
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >
>
>

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

RE: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

2020-04-15 Thread Yishay Weiss 
I’ve just noticed the subject should be changed to

[DISCUSS] Release Apache Royale Compiler Build Tools 1.2.0. Looks like a bug in 
CI step 6.

Anyway, the vote has passed. I haven’t seen previous announcements on compiler 
build tools. Has this been done in the past? Can anyone point me to an example?

Thanks.

From: Greg Dove<mailto:greg.d...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 9:27 PM
To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

fyi I can't get to this until my current EOD, about 12 hours from now. I
will remind myself what I need to do and check it then and vote, if the
voting is still open (I understand it may not be, as I think the threshold
was already passed).



On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 6:03 AM Carlos Rovira 
wrote:

> Remember that we have Maven Wrapper [1] in our repo so if you don't have
> maven installed you can just use "mvnw" (Mac) or "mvnw.cmd" (Win) and that
> will install maven for you :)
>
> [1] https://github.com/takari/maven-wrapper
>
> El mar., 14 abr. 2020 a las 18:05, Josh Tynjala (<
> joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev>)
> escribió:
>
> > If you're on Windows, and you happened to install Maven using the
> > Chocolatey package manager, you may need to tweak the
> ApproveBuildTools.xml
> > file to get it to work.
> >
> > Find this line:
> >
> > 
> >
> > And change it to this:
> >
> > 
> >
> > I think that most people will be fine, but I just wanted to mention it.
> >
> > --
> > Josh Tynjala
> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:33 PM  wrote:
> >
> > > This is the discussion thread.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Yishay Weiss
> >
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

2020-04-14 Thread Greg Dove 
fyi I can't get to this until my current EOD, about 12 hours from now. I
will remind myself what I need to do and check it then and vote, if the
voting is still open (I understand it may not be, as I think the threshold
was already passed).



On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 6:03 AM Carlos Rovira 
wrote:

> Remember that we have Maven Wrapper [1] in our repo so if you don't have
> maven installed you can just use "mvnw" (Mac) or "mvnw.cmd" (Win) and that
> will install maven for you :)
>
> [1] https://github.com/takari/maven-wrapper
>
> El mar., 14 abr. 2020 a las 18:05, Josh Tynjala (<
> joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev>)
> escribió:
>
> > If you're on Windows, and you happened to install Maven using the
> > Chocolatey package manager, you may need to tweak the
> ApproveBuildTools.xml
> > file to get it to work.
> >
> > Find this line:
> >
> > 
> >
> > And change it to this:
> >
> > 
> >
> > I think that most people will be fine, but I just wanted to mention it.
> >
> > --
> > Josh Tynjala
> > Bowler Hat LLC 
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:33 PM  wrote:
> >
> > > This is the discussion thread.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Yishay Weiss
> >
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

2020-04-14 Thread Carlos Rovira 
Remember that we have Maven Wrapper [1] in our repo so if you don't have
maven installed you can just use "mvnw" (Mac) or "mvnw.cmd" (Win) and that
will install maven for you :)

[1] https://github.com/takari/maven-wrapper

El mar., 14 abr. 2020 a las 18:05, Josh Tynjala ()
escribió:

> If you're on Windows, and you happened to install Maven using the
> Chocolatey package manager, you may need to tweak the ApproveBuildTools.xml
> file to get it to work.
>
> Find this line:
>
> 
>
> And change it to this:
>
> 
>
> I think that most people will be fine, but I just wanted to mention it.
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC 
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:33 PM  wrote:
>
> > This is the discussion thread.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Yishay Weiss
>


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

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

2020-04-14 Thread Josh Tynjala 
If you're on Windows, and you happened to install Maven using the
Chocolatey package manager, you may need to tweak the ApproveBuildTools.xml
file to get it to work.

Find this line:



And change it to this:



I think that most people will be fine, but I just wanted to mention it.

--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC 


On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:33 PM  wrote:

> This is the discussion thread.
>
> Thanks,
> Yishay Weiss

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

2020-04-14 Thread Carlos Rovira 
Hi Alex,
thanks it worked :)

El mar., 14 abr. 2020 a las 0:32, Alex Harui ()
escribió:

> I haven't tried it myself, but I'm pretty sure we need to re-import the
> KEYS file.
>
> Steps should be something like:
> 1) download https://downloads.apache.org/royale/KEYS
> 2) gpg --import 
>
> HTH,
> -Alex
>
> On 4/13/20, 3:27 PM, "Carlos Rovira"  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm having problems verifying signature. I can't check the public key
> with
> the apache key servers in documentation.
> What should you do in this cases? (what command you use that is
> currently working for you?)
>
> thanks
>
>
>
> El lun., 13 abr. 2020 a las 22:33, 
> escribió:
>
> > This is the discussion thread.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Yishay Weiss
>
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb54c230f8d544ca6b3d308d7dff9c4e9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637224136219344275&sdata=WSWe9Ydbss1pANoyMOI2GIM9Wi%2F8GIq2%2Bi0IbUXFZBY%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

2020-04-13 Thread Alex Harui 
I haven't tried it myself, but I'm pretty sure we need to re-import the KEYS 
file.

Steps should be something like:
1) download https://downloads.apache.org/royale/KEYS
2) gpg --import 

HTH,
-Alex

On 4/13/20, 3:27 PM, "Carlos Rovira"  wrote:

Hi,

I'm having problems verifying signature. I can't check the public key with
the apache key servers in documentation.
What should you do in this cases? (what command you use that is
currently working for you?)

thanks



El lun., 13 abr. 2020 a las 22:33,  escribió:

> This is the discussion thread.
>
> Thanks,
> Yishay Weiss



-- 
Carlos Rovira

https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb54c230f8d544ca6b3d308d7dff9c4e9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637224136219344275&sdata=WSWe9Ydbss1pANoyMOI2GIM9Wi%2F8GIq2%2Bi0IbUXFZBY%3D&reserved=0

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

2020-04-13 Thread Carlos Rovira 
Hi,

I'm having problems verifying signature. I can't check the public key with
the apache key servers in documentation.
What should you do in this cases? (what command you use that is
currently working for you?)

thanks



El lun., 13 abr. 2020 a las 22:33,  escribió:

> This is the discussion thread.
>
> Thanks,
> Yishay Weiss



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

[DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

2020-04-13 Thread apacheroyaleci 
This is the discussion thread.

Thanks,
Yishay Weiss