Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Olaf Krueger]

Hi Justin,
it seems to me that the issue is that the 'type selector', e.g. h1{} [1] is
transpiled to a class selector .h1{}. And because no class selector is
assigned to those components, those styles will never be applied.

So, setting className="h1" works, but that's probably not that what we want.

I remember from another thread that that: "a Royale 'type' selector isn't
really a 
true CSS Type Selector.  It is really a Class selector with the same name as 
the component's typeNames property". 

Can somebody explain if this is related to this issue here?

Thanks,
Olaf

[1] h1{font-size: 32px; margin: .67em 0 }
[2] .h1 {margin: .67em 0; font-size: 32px;}






[1]
http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/Need-help-with-CSS-class-selector-font-family-is-always-Arial-td1418.html

[2]
This is a short summary of my quick google search and investigation, maybe 
this is helpul for others (Of course, I could be wrong!): 

Universal selector (*): 
Applies style properties to all individual elements. 
Replaces inherited style properties, blocks inheritance. 

@see https://drafts.csswg.org/selectors-3/#universal-selector



--
Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

I’ve run into a issue with this release, if you use the HTML component and 
style them some of the styles (in particular font and font size) are being 
overridden.

You can see this with the HTML example in 
royale-asjs/examples/royale/HTMLElements all of the H1 - H6 headers end up 
being the same size. (Tested in Chrome, Safari and Firefox on OSX and all 
showed the same issue.)

I believe it because of this in the CSS:

* {
border-width: 1px;
font-family: Arial;
font-size: 12px;
}

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Alex Harui]

OK, I am going to prepare RC2.

On 1/18/18, 3:23 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
 wrote:

>Hi Alex,
>
>it's ok to remove both. We need to get a first release as soon as
>possible.
>People on twitter is ask us for this.
>So First things first.
>Thanks
>
>2018-01-18 11:00 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
>
>> Hi Carlos,
>>
>> I don't doubt that MDLExample is referred to often, however it may not
>>be
>> ok for us to bundle it in Royale releases.  The problem is not the
>>images,
>> it is the bits of CSS and maybe some text content from HTML files that
>>is
>> the issue.  Are you ok with us removing MDLExample and MDLBlogExample in
>> this release?  BTW, both MDLExample and MDLBlogExample seem to run fine
>> for me on FireFox and Chrome.  We will do a "git rm" on those folders
>>and
>> then fix up pom.xml and build.xml accordingly.  If we get a favorable
>> ruling we can do "git revert" and bring it back.  If we have to handle
>> MDLBlogExample as Category X, then in order to make it look exactly the
>> same as Google's example, it will never be allowed in the Royale
>>releases,
>> but we could either make it easy for users to build those examples or
>> download those examples from some other place on the internet.
>>
>> For MDLExample, we have the additional option of tweaking the component
>> explorer to use different CSS and text.  But that will take time so the
>> thinking is that we should temporarily remove those two examples, get a
>> release out and then figure out how to make it available to users.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 1/17/18, 4:24 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos
>>Rovira"
>>  wrote:
>>
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >I think MDLExample is one of the most referred examples out there. I
>> >couldn't follow all the discussion since I was busy with work and other
>> >task in this project, but I read that we had some problems with
>>images. We
>> >can change the images for place holders. If there's some more problem I
>> >don't know right now.
>> >
>> >About MDLBlogExample is unfinished and can be not released. I found
>>some
>> >blocking problems with CSS compiler when tried to complete. If can be
>> >removed from release but maintain the code I think it would be ok.
>> >
>> >In the end, now we rely heavily in MDL, but we should work forward a
>> >future
>> >where we can deprecate that library in favor of our own UI component
>>set
>> >that could have the same appearance with a theme.
>> >
>> >Thanks
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >2018-01-17 10:28 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :
>> >
>> >> Olaf,
>> >>
>> >> I'm against even for that. MDLExample should be always in release
>> >>package.
>> >> If I understand Alex's idea the things should be fixed in the commit
>> >>time,
>> >> so now we have release time. We had that issue for several releases,
>>we
>> >>can
>> >> leave with it one more release.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks, Piotr
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2018-01-17 10:24 GMT+01:00 Olaf Krueger :
>> >>
>> >> > Hi Piotr,
>> >> > just to make sure you don't get it wrong:
>> >> >
>> >> > The idea is to just remove it from the RC2 (So from the first
>>Royale
>> >> > release
>> >> > at the end) just in order to have some more time to fix the
>>IP/license
>> >> > issues and so don't delay the release any longer.
>> >> >
>> >> > This does not mean that those examples aren't less important, of
>> >>course!!
>> >> >
>> >> > If I understand Alex correctly, the idea is to have continuous
>>release
>> >> > cycles, e.g. every 2 or 4 weeks so that we can add the MDL_Example
>> >>soon
>> >> > again.
>> >> > If I can do anything, I'd like to offer some help in order to fix
>> >>those
>> >> > issues.
>> >> >
>> >> > Is it already clear what we have to do to fix those issues?
>> >> > If it's not so much effort we maybe could do it right now and keep
>>it
>> >> with
>> >> > RC2?
>> >> >
>> >> > Just my thoughts,
>> >> > Olaf
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Sent from:
>> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%
>> 3A%2F%2Fapache-ro
>> >>yale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%
>> 40adobe.com
>> >>%7C7cc65c14c3ee495fe57708d55da5537c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794ae
>> d2c178decee1%7C
>> >>0%7C0%7C636517887011629087=q5eKxiKAqUnEvkw8%2BvU0DD%
>> 2BK%2BKsIk8GxKg
>> >>pwCS1yzrI%3D=0
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> Piotr Zarzycki
>> >>
>> >> Patreon:
>> >>*https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%
>> 3A%2F%2Fwww.pat
>> >>reon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
>> %7C7cc65c14c3ee
>> >>495fe57708d55da5537c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%
>> 7C0%7C0%7C6365178
>> >>87011629087=LwRduFSZa%2BNOPd3EJCHZc1Ht7EN5dzgULWvI6G
>> ffUTQ%3D
>> >>ed=0
>> >>
>> >>> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi Alex,

it's ok to remove both. We need to get a first release as soon as possible.
People on twitter is ask us for this.
So First things first.
Thanks

2018-01-18 11:00 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :

> Hi Carlos,
>
> I don't doubt that MDLExample is referred to often, however it may not be
> ok for us to bundle it in Royale releases.  The problem is not the images,
> it is the bits of CSS and maybe some text content from HTML files that is
> the issue.  Are you ok with us removing MDLExample and MDLBlogExample in
> this release?  BTW, both MDLExample and MDLBlogExample seem to run fine
> for me on FireFox and Chrome.  We will do a "git rm" on those folders and
> then fix up pom.xml and build.xml accordingly.  If we get a favorable
> ruling we can do "git revert" and bring it back.  If we have to handle
> MDLBlogExample as Category X, then in order to make it look exactly the
> same as Google's example, it will never be allowed in the Royale releases,
> but we could either make it easy for users to build those examples or
> download those examples from some other place on the internet.
>
> For MDLExample, we have the additional option of tweaking the component
> explorer to use different CSS and text.  But that will take time so the
> thinking is that we should temporarily remove those two examples, get a
> release out and then figure out how to make it available to users.
>
> Thoughts?
> -Alex
>
> On 1/17/18, 4:24 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
>  wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >I think MDLExample is one of the most referred examples out there. I
> >couldn't follow all the discussion since I was busy with work and other
> >task in this project, but I read that we had some problems with images. We
> >can change the images for place holders. If there's some more problem I
> >don't know right now.
> >
> >About MDLBlogExample is unfinished and can be not released. I found some
> >blocking problems with CSS compiler when tried to complete. If can be
> >removed from release but maintain the code I think it would be ok.
> >
> >In the end, now we rely heavily in MDL, but we should work forward a
> >future
> >where we can deprecate that library in favor of our own UI component set
> >that could have the same appearance with a theme.
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >2018-01-17 10:28 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :
> >
> >> Olaf,
> >>
> >> I'm against even for that. MDLExample should be always in release
> >>package.
> >> If I understand Alex's idea the things should be fixed in the commit
> >>time,
> >> so now we have release time. We had that issue for several releases, we
> >>can
> >> leave with it one more release.
> >>
> >> Thanks, Piotr
> >>
> >>
> >> 2018-01-17 10:24 GMT+01:00 Olaf Krueger :
> >>
> >> > Hi Piotr,
> >> > just to make sure you don't get it wrong:
> >> >
> >> > The idea is to just remove it from the RC2 (So from the first Royale
> >> > release
> >> > at the end) just in order to have some more time to fix the IP/license
> >> > issues and so don't delay the release any longer.
> >> >
> >> > This does not mean that those examples aren't less important, of
> >>course!!
> >> >
> >> > If I understand Alex correctly, the idea is to have continuous release
> >> > cycles, e.g. every 2 or 4 weeks so that we can add the MDL_Example
> >>soon
> >> > again.
> >> > If I can do anything, I'd like to offer some help in order to fix
> >>those
> >> > issues.
> >> >
> >> > Is it already clear what we have to do to fix those issues?
> >> > If it's not so much effort we maybe could do it right now and keep it
> >> with
> >> > RC2?
> >> >
> >> > Just my thoughts,
> >> > Olaf
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Sent from:
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%
> 3A%2F%2Fapache-ro
> >>yale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%
> 40adobe.com
> >>%7C7cc65c14c3ee495fe57708d55da5537c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794ae
> d2c178decee1%7C
> >>0%7C0%7C636517887011629087=q5eKxiKAqUnEvkw8%2BvU0DD%
> 2BK%2BKsIk8GxKg
> >>pwCS1yzrI%3D=0
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Piotr Zarzycki
> >>
> >> Patreon:
> >>*https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%
> 3A%2F%2Fwww.pat
> >>reon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
> %7C7cc65c14c3ee
> >>495fe57708d55da5537c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%
> 7C0%7C0%7C6365178
> >>87011629087=LwRduFSZa%2BNOPd3EJCHZc1Ht7EN5dzgULWvI6G
> ffUTQ%3D
> >>ed=0
> >>
> >> 3A%2F%2Fwww.pat
> >>reon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
> %7C7cc65c14c3ee
> >>495fe57708d55da5537c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%
> 7C0%7C0%7C6365178
> >>87011629087=LwRduFSZa%2BNOPd3EJCHZc1Ht7EN5dzgULWvI6G
> ffUTQ%3D
> >>ed=0>*
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Carlos Rovira
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Alex Harui]

Hi Carlos,

I don't doubt that MDLExample is referred to often, however it may not be
ok for us to bundle it in Royale releases.  The problem is not the images,
it is the bits of CSS and maybe some text content from HTML files that is
the issue.  Are you ok with us removing MDLExample and MDLBlogExample in
this release?  BTW, both MDLExample and MDLBlogExample seem to run fine
for me on FireFox and Chrome.  We will do a "git rm" on those folders and
then fix up pom.xml and build.xml accordingly.  If we get a favorable
ruling we can do "git revert" and bring it back.  If we have to handle
MDLBlogExample as Category X, then in order to make it look exactly the
same as Google's example, it will never be allowed in the Royale releases,
but we could either make it easy for users to build those examples or
download those examples from some other place on the internet.

For MDLExample, we have the additional option of tweaking the component
explorer to use different CSS and text.  But that will take time so the
thinking is that we should temporarily remove those two examples, get a
release out and then figure out how to make it available to users.

Thoughts?
-Alex

On 1/17/18, 4:24 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
 wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I think MDLExample is one of the most referred examples out there. I
>couldn't follow all the discussion since I was busy with work and other
>task in this project, but I read that we had some problems with images. We
>can change the images for place holders. If there's some more problem I
>don't know right now.
>
>About MDLBlogExample is unfinished and can be not released. I found some
>blocking problems with CSS compiler when tried to complete. If can be
>removed from release but maintain the code I think it would be ok.
>
>In the end, now we rely heavily in MDL, but we should work forward a
>future
>where we can deprecate that library in favor of our own UI component set
>that could have the same appearance with a theme.
>
>Thanks
>
>
>
>
>
>2018-01-17 10:28 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :
>
>> Olaf,
>>
>> I'm against even for that. MDLExample should be always in release
>>package.
>> If I understand Alex's idea the things should be fixed in the commit
>>time,
>> so now we have release time. We had that issue for several releases, we
>>can
>> leave with it one more release.
>>
>> Thanks, Piotr
>>
>>
>> 2018-01-17 10:24 GMT+01:00 Olaf Krueger :
>>
>> > Hi Piotr,
>> > just to make sure you don't get it wrong:
>> >
>> > The idea is to just remove it from the RC2 (So from the first Royale
>> > release
>> > at the end) just in order to have some more time to fix the IP/license
>> > issues and so don't delay the release any longer.
>> >
>> > This does not mean that those examples aren't less important, of
>>course!!
>> >
>> > If I understand Alex correctly, the idea is to have continuous release
>> > cycles, e.g. every 2 or 4 weeks so that we can add the MDL_Example
>>soon
>> > again.
>> > If I can do anything, I'd like to offer some help in order to fix
>>those
>> > issues.
>> >
>> > Is it already clear what we have to do to fix those issues?
>> > If it's not so much effort we maybe could do it right now and keep it
>> with
>> > RC2?
>> >
>> > Just my thoughts,
>> > Olaf
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Sent from: 
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-ro
>>yale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
>>%7C7cc65c14c3ee495fe57708d55da5537c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C
>>0%7C0%7C636517887011629087=q5eKxiKAqUnEvkw8%2BvU0DD%2BK%2BKsIk8GxKg
>>pwCS1yzrI%3D=0
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Piotr Zarzycki
>>
>> Patreon: 
>>*https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pat
>>reon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C7cc65c14c3ee
>>495fe57708d55da5537c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365178
>>87011629087=LwRduFSZa%2BNOPd3EJCHZc1Ht7EN5dzgULWvI6GffUTQ%3D
>>ed=0
>> 
>>>reon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C7cc65c14c3ee
>>495fe57708d55da5537c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365178
>>87011629087=LwRduFSZa%2BNOPd3EJCHZc1Ht7EN5dzgULWvI6GffUTQ%3D
>>ed=0>*
>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>Carlos Rovira
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
>Fcarlosrovira=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C7cc65c14c3ee495fe57708d5
>5da5537c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636517887011629087
>data=EHt08YgZdLJoAP4%2Fw%2Bsgw6yBBn3VhnVhK2C4r7%2F1pVw%3D=0

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> Are you now claiming this content is under CC-BY-SA instead of just CC-BY?
> I did not see that.  Where did you get that? Share-Alike (SA) has more
> restrictions than just CC-BY, AIUI.

Sorry my mistake it’s CC-BY not CC-SA. Full name "Creative Commons Attribution 
International 4.0 License”. Harbs made the same error is his GitHub issue [1] 
and may want to correct that.

Justin

1. https://github.com/google/material-design-lite/issues

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

Here is the relevant license text:

=
  All code in any directories or sub-directories that end with *.html or
   *.css is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International
   4.0 License, which full text can be found here:
   https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.

   As an exception to this license, all html or css that is generated by
   the software at the direction of the user is copyright the user. The
   user has full ownership and control over such content, including
   whether and how they wish to license it.
=

Only code that is under directories that end with .html or .css are CC-4.0
licensed.  Do we see any such directories in our codebase?

Thanks,
Om


On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Alex Harui 
wrote:

> The legal email is here:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/22458fb5e7e73adaff5345744ba168
> 42c57352
> eab72fd89ae0423327@%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E
>
> -Alex
>
> On 1/17/18, 11:30 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:
>
> >Hi Alex,
> >
> >Thanks for the explanation. Can you share link to the legal email/jira - I
> >cannot find it. Legal-VP - It means that you have asked one person ?
> >
> >Option 1) I personally don't have enough free time to make such changes in
> >those examples.
> >Option 2) If Legal answer that because of current state of code we cannot
> >host it and we will need change it a lot. - Option 1. - I will grab
> >MDLExample and store it into my private repository.
> >Option 3) Is out of question. They won't do this for sure.
> >
> >We all want to get this release as fast as we can, let's remove examples
> >from this release.
> >
> >Thanks, Piotr
> >
> >
> >2018-01-17 18:33 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
> >
> >> Piotr, Carlos,
> >>
> >> Please read and respond.  Others are welcome to give their thoughts as
> >> well.
> >>
> >> Just to be clear, MDLBlogExample is an attempt to exactly replicate an
> >> example from Google's MDL repo.  Google's example contains HTML and CSS
> >> files and the example uses text content from the HTML files and CSS from
> >> the CSS files and the content is under CC-BY-4.0 which, from what I can
> >> tell from the background information I've read, is only in Category B
> >> because of a usage restriction and not because it is "copyleft".  The
> >> usage restriction concern is that the ASF does not want CC-BY lines of
> >> code mixed with regular ALv2 code since that would effectively poison
> >>the
> >> ALv2 code.  You wouldn't be able to use it "everywhere".  So I have
> >>asked
> >> VP Legal if, because our CC-BY content is contained in an example and we
> >> prominently label it, there is negligible risk of having other ALv2 code
> >> poisoned.  Even if you were to build your own Blog app from
> >> MDLBLogExample, you are almost certain to replace the text content, and
> >> would probably alter the styles as well, although you would be warned
> >>that
> >> if you don't, CC-BY restrictions apply to your app.
> >>
> >> Unless the VP Legal agrees that the risk is "ok" because we've
> >>prominently
> >> labelled the CC-BY-4.0 content, our choices are (that I have thought of
> >>so
> >> far):
> >> 1) Bundle only the ALv2 stuff and exclude from -bin packages:  This
> >> involves changing the build scripts to download the CSS file.  And
> >>either
> >> replace the text content with something else or also figure out how to
> >>get
> >> the build/download scripts to extract the text content from the HTML
> >>file
> >> (sounds painful).  Users opening the -bin package will not be able to
> >>run
> >> the example.  They will have to build it themselves.
> >> 2) Create an "Extras" repository somewhere.  This is a separate,
> >> non-Apache repo where people could put things that aren't fully ALv2
> >> compliant. Some other ASF projects have Extras on SourceForge.  I think
> >> they have warning signs that code in an Extras repo is not officially
> >> released.  We could post a pre-compiled MDLBlogExample there, but we
> >>still
> >> couldn't bundle it with our regular -bin packages.  There could be a
> >> script in the NPM install that asks if you want it and gets it for you.
> >> We could go back to using an Installer like the Flex Installer so we can
> >> ask everyone if they want MDLBlogExample, but we can't make it
> >> ready-to-run for everyone by default.
> >> 3) Convince Google to change the licensing on their HTML and CSS files.
> >>
> >> All of these options are non-trivial, IMO, and so several folks have
> >> suggested temporarily removing MDLBlogExample from this first release
> >> until we hear back from VP Legal or execute on one of these options.
> >>
> >> MDLExample is currently being treated like MDLBlogExample.  That's
> >>because
> >> I think it is trying to replicate some of the examples from material.io
> >> and is directly using some CSS and I think some text from some HTML
> >>files
> >> in the MDL 

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Alex Harui]

The legal email is here:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/22458fb5e7e73adaff5345744ba16842c57352
eab72fd89ae0423327@%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E

-Alex

On 1/17/18, 11:30 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:

>Hi Alex,
>
>Thanks for the explanation. Can you share link to the legal email/jira - I
>cannot find it. Legal-VP - It means that you have asked one person ?
>
>Option 1) I personally don't have enough free time to make such changes in
>those examples.
>Option 2) If Legal answer that because of current state of code we cannot
>host it and we will need change it a lot. - Option 1. - I will grab
>MDLExample and store it into my private repository.
>Option 3) Is out of question. They won't do this for sure.
>
>We all want to get this release as fast as we can, let's remove examples
>from this release.
>
>Thanks, Piotr
>
>
>2018-01-17 18:33 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
>
>> Piotr, Carlos,
>>
>> Please read and respond.  Others are welcome to give their thoughts as
>> well.
>>
>> Just to be clear, MDLBlogExample is an attempt to exactly replicate an
>> example from Google's MDL repo.  Google's example contains HTML and CSS
>> files and the example uses text content from the HTML files and CSS from
>> the CSS files and the content is under CC-BY-4.0 which, from what I can
>> tell from the background information I've read, is only in Category B
>> because of a usage restriction and not because it is "copyleft".  The
>> usage restriction concern is that the ASF does not want CC-BY lines of
>> code mixed with regular ALv2 code since that would effectively poison
>>the
>> ALv2 code.  You wouldn't be able to use it "everywhere".  So I have
>>asked
>> VP Legal if, because our CC-BY content is contained in an example and we
>> prominently label it, there is negligible risk of having other ALv2 code
>> poisoned.  Even if you were to build your own Blog app from
>> MDLBLogExample, you are almost certain to replace the text content, and
>> would probably alter the styles as well, although you would be warned
>>that
>> if you don't, CC-BY restrictions apply to your app.
>>
>> Unless the VP Legal agrees that the risk is "ok" because we've
>>prominently
>> labelled the CC-BY-4.0 content, our choices are (that I have thought of
>>so
>> far):
>> 1) Bundle only the ALv2 stuff and exclude from -bin packages:  This
>> involves changing the build scripts to download the CSS file.  And
>>either
>> replace the text content with something else or also figure out how to
>>get
>> the build/download scripts to extract the text content from the HTML
>>file
>> (sounds painful).  Users opening the -bin package will not be able to
>>run
>> the example.  They will have to build it themselves.
>> 2) Create an "Extras" repository somewhere.  This is a separate,
>> non-Apache repo where people could put things that aren't fully ALv2
>> compliant. Some other ASF projects have Extras on SourceForge.  I think
>> they have warning signs that code in an Extras repo is not officially
>> released.  We could post a pre-compiled MDLBlogExample there, but we
>>still
>> couldn't bundle it with our regular -bin packages.  There could be a
>> script in the NPM install that asks if you want it and gets it for you.
>> We could go back to using an Installer like the Flex Installer so we can
>> ask everyone if they want MDLBlogExample, but we can't make it
>> ready-to-run for everyone by default.
>> 3) Convince Google to change the licensing on their HTML and CSS files.
>>
>> All of these options are non-trivial, IMO, and so several folks have
>> suggested temporarily removing MDLBlogExample from this first release
>> until we hear back from VP Legal or execute on one of these options.
>>
>> MDLExample is currently being treated like MDLBlogExample.  That's
>>because
>> I think it is trying to replicate some of the examples from material.io
>> and is directly using some CSS and I think some text from some HTML
>>files
>> in the MDL Github repo.  I'm unclear whether the main screen is our
>>design
>> or a replication of a component explorer that Google created.  Unless
>>the
>> goal of MDLExample is to exactly replicate something else, MDLExample
>>has
>> a fourth choice, IMO, where we create custom styles and text content so
>> there is no more CC-BY content.  But again, that is also non-trivial
>>work,
>> so if we want to get a release out soon, the fastest way is to
>>temporarily
>> remove this example from this first release.  It can be easily brought
>> back later depending on what we decide.
>>
>> Regardless of what we choose, we all have to get better at reviewing the
>> commits when new code is involved.  If you are copying something you saw
>> somewhere else, try to make sure it gets reviewed, maybe even before
>> committing.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 1/17/18, 4:57 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:
>>
>> >We have to also exclude MDLBlogExample from ANT build, because ANT is

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Hi Alex,

Thanks for the explanation. Can you share link to the legal email/jira - I
cannot find it. Legal-VP - It means that you have asked one person ?

Option 1) I personally don't have enough free time to make such changes in
those examples.
Option 2) If Legal answer that because of current state of code we cannot
host it and we will need change it a lot. - Option 1. - I will grab
MDLExample and store it into my private repository.
Option 3) Is out of question. They won't do this for sure.

We all want to get this release as fast as we can, let's remove examples
from this release.

Thanks, Piotr


2018-01-17 18:33 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :

> Piotr, Carlos,
>
> Please read and respond.  Others are welcome to give their thoughts as
> well.
>
> Just to be clear, MDLBlogExample is an attempt to exactly replicate an
> example from Google's MDL repo.  Google's example contains HTML and CSS
> files and the example uses text content from the HTML files and CSS from
> the CSS files and the content is under CC-BY-4.0 which, from what I can
> tell from the background information I've read, is only in Category B
> because of a usage restriction and not because it is "copyleft".  The
> usage restriction concern is that the ASF does not want CC-BY lines of
> code mixed with regular ALv2 code since that would effectively poison the
> ALv2 code.  You wouldn't be able to use it "everywhere".  So I have asked
> VP Legal if, because our CC-BY content is contained in an example and we
> prominently label it, there is negligible risk of having other ALv2 code
> poisoned.  Even if you were to build your own Blog app from
> MDLBLogExample, you are almost certain to replace the text content, and
> would probably alter the styles as well, although you would be warned that
> if you don't, CC-BY restrictions apply to your app.
>
> Unless the VP Legal agrees that the risk is "ok" because we've prominently
> labelled the CC-BY-4.0 content, our choices are (that I have thought of so
> far):
> 1) Bundle only the ALv2 stuff and exclude from -bin packages:  This
> involves changing the build scripts to download the CSS file.  And either
> replace the text content with something else or also figure out how to get
> the build/download scripts to extract the text content from the HTML file
> (sounds painful).  Users opening the -bin package will not be able to run
> the example.  They will have to build it themselves.
> 2) Create an "Extras" repository somewhere.  This is a separate,
> non-Apache repo where people could put things that aren't fully ALv2
> compliant. Some other ASF projects have Extras on SourceForge.  I think
> they have warning signs that code in an Extras repo is not officially
> released.  We could post a pre-compiled MDLBlogExample there, but we still
> couldn't bundle it with our regular -bin packages.  There could be a
> script in the NPM install that asks if you want it and gets it for you.
> We could go back to using an Installer like the Flex Installer so we can
> ask everyone if they want MDLBlogExample, but we can't make it
> ready-to-run for everyone by default.
> 3) Convince Google to change the licensing on their HTML and CSS files.
>
> All of these options are non-trivial, IMO, and so several folks have
> suggested temporarily removing MDLBlogExample from this first release
> until we hear back from VP Legal or execute on one of these options.
>
> MDLExample is currently being treated like MDLBlogExample.  That's because
> I think it is trying to replicate some of the examples from material.io
> and is directly using some CSS and I think some text from some HTML files
> in the MDL Github repo.  I'm unclear whether the main screen is our design
> or a replication of a component explorer that Google created.  Unless the
> goal of MDLExample is to exactly replicate something else, MDLExample has
> a fourth choice, IMO, where we create custom styles and text content so
> there is no more CC-BY content.  But again, that is also non-trivial work,
> so if we want to get a release out soon, the fastest way is to temporarily
> remove this example from this first release.  It can be easily brought
> back later depending on what we decide.
>
> Regardless of what we choose, we all have to get better at reviewing the
> commits when new code is involved.  If you are copying something you saw
> somewhere else, try to make sure it gets reviewed, maybe even before
> committing.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> On 1/17/18, 4:57 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:
>
> >We have to also exclude MDLBlogExample from ANT build, because ANT is
> >producing distribution package for IDE usage not Maven.
> >
> >Thanks for explanation, so by deprecation you mean rather recommendation
> >to
> >the users some other UI module instead of MDL. Not removing it completely
> >from the framework set. Because deprecation to me is always towards to one
> >thing:
> >1) Mark something as deprecated
> >2) Remove 

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Alex Harui]

On 1/16/18, 9:16 PM, "Justin Mclean"  wrote:

>Hi,
>
>> Royale is not going to operate like Flex.  We want to be more responsive
>> to our users.  So instead of conducting detailed searches for IP issues
>>at
>> release time, they should be done at commit time or at other times.
>
>The issue has been brought up before so is a known issue. (See that
>discussion thread). Given that discussion I would of assumed that
>committers wouldn't check in plain text CC-BY-SA licensed content. But I
>guess people forget about it, I had even forgotten about that thread. If
>you where watching the commits it would be very easy to miss the file(s)
>in question as they also incorrectly had an ASF headers on them. But any
>PMC member or committer could of noticed this, the fact that no one did
>until now probably indicates how difficult it was to find. Perhaps it
>would be better to deal with licensing issues when they are raised or
>soon after - especially when a 3rd party doesn’t respond in a timely way?
>
>BTW the legal JIRA about CC-SA content is here [1] not sure if you
>managed to find that when looking at the issue.

Are you now claiming this content is under CC-BY-SA instead of just CC-BY?
 I did not see that.  Where did you get that? Share-Alike (SA) has more
restrictions than just CC-BY, AIUI.

-Alex

>

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Alex Harui]

Piotr, Carlos,

Please read and respond.  Others are welcome to give their thoughts as
well.

Just to be clear, MDLBlogExample is an attempt to exactly replicate an
example from Google's MDL repo.  Google's example contains HTML and CSS
files and the example uses text content from the HTML files and CSS from
the CSS files and the content is under CC-BY-4.0 which, from what I can
tell from the background information I've read, is only in Category B
because of a usage restriction and not because it is "copyleft".  The
usage restriction concern is that the ASF does not want CC-BY lines of
code mixed with regular ALv2 code since that would effectively poison the
ALv2 code.  You wouldn't be able to use it "everywhere".  So I have asked
VP Legal if, because our CC-BY content is contained in an example and we
prominently label it, there is negligible risk of having other ALv2 code
poisoned.  Even if you were to build your own Blog app from
MDLBLogExample, you are almost certain to replace the text content, and
would probably alter the styles as well, although you would be warned that
if you don't, CC-BY restrictions apply to your app.

Unless the VP Legal agrees that the risk is "ok" because we've prominently
labelled the CC-BY-4.0 content, our choices are (that I have thought of so
far):
1) Bundle only the ALv2 stuff and exclude from -bin packages:  This
involves changing the build scripts to download the CSS file.  And either
replace the text content with something else or also figure out how to get
the build/download scripts to extract the text content from the HTML file
(sounds painful).  Users opening the -bin package will not be able to run
the example.  They will have to build it themselves.
2) Create an "Extras" repository somewhere.  This is a separate,
non-Apache repo where people could put things that aren't fully ALv2
compliant. Some other ASF projects have Extras on SourceForge.  I think
they have warning signs that code in an Extras repo is not officially
released.  We could post a pre-compiled MDLBlogExample there, but we still
couldn't bundle it with our regular -bin packages.  There could be a
script in the NPM install that asks if you want it and gets it for you.
We could go back to using an Installer like the Flex Installer so we can
ask everyone if they want MDLBlogExample, but we can't make it
ready-to-run for everyone by default.
3) Convince Google to change the licensing on their HTML and CSS files.

All of these options are non-trivial, IMO, and so several folks have
suggested temporarily removing MDLBlogExample from this first release
until we hear back from VP Legal or execute on one of these options.

MDLExample is currently being treated like MDLBlogExample.  That's because
I think it is trying to replicate some of the examples from material.io
and is directly using some CSS and I think some text from some HTML files
in the MDL Github repo.  I'm unclear whether the main screen is our design
or a replication of a component explorer that Google created.  Unless the
goal of MDLExample is to exactly replicate something else, MDLExample has
a fourth choice, IMO, where we create custom styles and text content so
there is no more CC-BY content.  But again, that is also non-trivial work,
so if we want to get a release out soon, the fastest way is to temporarily
remove this example from this first release.  It can be easily brought
back later depending on what we decide.

Regardless of what we choose, we all have to get better at reviewing the
commits when new code is involved.  If you are copying something you saw
somewhere else, try to make sure it gets reviewed, maybe even before
committing.

Thanks,
-Alex

On 1/17/18, 4:57 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:

>We have to also exclude MDLBlogExample from ANT build, because ANT is
>producing distribution package for IDE usage not Maven.
>
>Thanks for explanation, so by deprecation you mean rather recommendation
>to
>the users some other UI module instead of MDL. Not removing it completely
>from the framework set. Because deprecation to me is always towards to one
>thing:
>1) Mark something as deprecated
>2) Remove it in some future version.
>
>Piotr
>
>
>2018-01-17 13:46 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira :
>
>> Hi Piotr
>>
>> 2018-01-17 13:29 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :
>>
>> > Hi Carlos,
>> >
>> > I think removing MDLBlogExample completely will be better, cause we
>>don't
>> > need to remember in every release about exclusion of that example.
>> >
>>
>> exclusion in maven is only not to list in modules section, so I think is
>> not much problem right?
>>
>>
>> >
>> > What do you mean by "deprecate that library" in terms of open source
>> > project ?
>> >
>>
>> If we'll get a UI set build exclusively for Royale that has themeing
>> feature and replicates MDL (and other look and feels), then we can
>> deprecate it, in terms that "we'll no longer update MDL library and you
>> should 

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Piotr Zarzycki]

We have to also exclude MDLBlogExample from ANT build, because ANT is
producing distribution package for IDE usage not Maven.

Thanks for explanation, so by deprecation you mean rather recommendation to
the users some other UI module instead of MDL. Not removing it completely
from the framework set. Because deprecation to me is always towards to one
thing:
1) Mark something as deprecated
2) Remove it in some future version.

Piotr


2018-01-17 13:46 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira :

> Hi Piotr
>
> 2018-01-17 13:29 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :
>
> > Hi Carlos,
> >
> > I think removing MDLBlogExample completely will be better, cause we don't
> > need to remember in every release about exclusion of that example.
> >
>
> exclusion in maven is only not to list in modules section, so I think is
> not much problem right?
>
>
> >
> > What do you mean by "deprecate that library" in terms of open source
> > project ?
> >
>
> If we'll get a UI set build exclusively for Royale that has themeing
> feature and replicates MDL (and other look and feels), then we can
> deprecate it, in terms that "we'll no longer update MDL library and you
> should use the new UI Set for any new project you build". So the use we'll
> be for people that already use it, and if they can migrate to the new want
> would be better. I always said that MDL was made to boost Royale grow and
> make people put an eye, but with a well done UI set it should be useless in
> the future
>
> thanks
>
>
> >
> > Thanks, Piotr
> >
> >
> > 2018-01-17 13:24 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira :
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I think MDLExample is one of the most referred examples out there. I
> > > couldn't follow all the discussion since I was busy with work and other
> > > task in this project, but I read that we had some problems with images.
> > We
> > > can change the images for place holders. If there's some more problem I
> > > don't know right now.
> > >
> > > About MDLBlogExample is unfinished and can be not released. I found
> some
> > > blocking problems with CSS compiler when tried to complete. If can be
> > > removed from release but maintain the code I think it would be ok.
> > >
> > > In the end, now we rely heavily in MDL, but we should work forward a
> > future
> > > where we can deprecate that library in favor of our own UI component
> set
> > > that could have the same appearance with a theme.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2018-01-17 10:28 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :
> > >
> > > > Olaf,
> > > >
> > > > I'm against even for that. MDLExample should be always in release
> > > package.
> > > > If I understand Alex's idea the things should be fixed in the commit
> > > time,
> > > > so now we have release time. We had that issue for several releases,
> we
> > > can
> > > > leave with it one more release.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, Piotr
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2018-01-17 10:24 GMT+01:00 Olaf Krueger :
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Piotr,
> > > > > just to make sure you don't get it wrong:
> > > > >
> > > > > The idea is to just remove it from the RC2 (So from the first
> Royale
> > > > > release
> > > > > at the end) just in order to have some more time to fix the
> > IP/license
> > > > > issues and so don't delay the release any longer.
> > > > >
> > > > > This does not mean that those examples aren't less important, of
> > > course!!
> > > > >
> > > > > If I understand Alex correctly, the idea is to have continuous
> > release
> > > > > cycles, e.g. every 2 or 4 weeks so that we can add the MDL_Example
> > soon
> > > > > again.
> > > > > If I can do anything, I'd like to offer some help in order to fix
> > those
> > > > > issues.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it already clear what we have to do to fix those issues?
> > > > > If it's not so much effort we maybe could do it right now and keep
> it
> > > > with
> > > > > RC2?
> > > > >
> > > > > Just my thoughts,
> > > > > Olaf
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Piotr Zarzycki
> > > >
> > > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > *
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carlos Rovira
> > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > *
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>



-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi Piotr

2018-01-17 13:29 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :

> Hi Carlos,
>
> I think removing MDLBlogExample completely will be better, cause we don't
> need to remember in every release about exclusion of that example.
>

exclusion in maven is only not to list in modules section, so I think is
not much problem right?


>
> What do you mean by "deprecate that library" in terms of open source
> project ?
>

If we'll get a UI set build exclusively for Royale that has themeing
feature and replicates MDL (and other look and feels), then we can
deprecate it, in terms that "we'll no longer update MDL library and you
should use the new UI Set for any new project you build". So the use we'll
be for people that already use it, and if they can migrate to the new want
would be better. I always said that MDL was made to boost Royale grow and
make people put an eye, but with a well done UI set it should be useless in
the future

thanks


>
> Thanks, Piotr
>
>
> 2018-01-17 13:24 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira :
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think MDLExample is one of the most referred examples out there. I
> > couldn't follow all the discussion since I was busy with work and other
> > task in this project, but I read that we had some problems with images.
> We
> > can change the images for place holders. If there's some more problem I
> > don't know right now.
> >
> > About MDLBlogExample is unfinished and can be not released. I found some
> > blocking problems with CSS compiler when tried to complete. If can be
> > removed from release but maintain the code I think it would be ok.
> >
> > In the end, now we rely heavily in MDL, but we should work forward a
> future
> > where we can deprecate that library in favor of our own UI component set
> > that could have the same appearance with a theme.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2018-01-17 10:28 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :
> >
> > > Olaf,
> > >
> > > I'm against even for that. MDLExample should be always in release
> > package.
> > > If I understand Alex's idea the things should be fixed in the commit
> > time,
> > > so now we have release time. We had that issue for several releases, we
> > can
> > > leave with it one more release.
> > >
> > > Thanks, Piotr
> > >
> > >
> > > 2018-01-17 10:24 GMT+01:00 Olaf Krueger :
> > >
> > > > Hi Piotr,
> > > > just to make sure you don't get it wrong:
> > > >
> > > > The idea is to just remove it from the RC2 (So from the first Royale
> > > > release
> > > > at the end) just in order to have some more time to fix the
> IP/license
> > > > issues and so don't delay the release any longer.
> > > >
> > > > This does not mean that those examples aren't less important, of
> > course!!
> > > >
> > > > If I understand Alex correctly, the idea is to have continuous
> release
> > > > cycles, e.g. every 2 or 4 weeks so that we can add the MDL_Example
> soon
> > > > again.
> > > > If I can do anything, I'd like to offer some help in order to fix
> those
> > > > issues.
> > > >
> > > > Is it already clear what we have to do to fix those issues?
> > > > If it's not so much effort we maybe could do it right now and keep it
> > > with
> > > > RC2?
> > > >
> > > > Just my thoughts,
> > > > Olaf
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Piotr Zarzycki
> > >
> > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > *
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> *
>



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

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Hi Carlos,

I think removing MDLBlogExample completely will be better, cause we don't
need to remember in every release about exclusion of that example.

What do you mean by "deprecate that library" in terms of open source
project ?

Thanks, Piotr


2018-01-17 13:24 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira :

> Hi,
>
> I think MDLExample is one of the most referred examples out there. I
> couldn't follow all the discussion since I was busy with work and other
> task in this project, but I read that we had some problems with images. We
> can change the images for place holders. If there's some more problem I
> don't know right now.
>
> About MDLBlogExample is unfinished and can be not released. I found some
> blocking problems with CSS compiler when tried to complete. If can be
> removed from release but maintain the code I think it would be ok.
>
> In the end, now we rely heavily in MDL, but we should work forward a future
> where we can deprecate that library in favor of our own UI component set
> that could have the same appearance with a theme.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
>
>
> 2018-01-17 10:28 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :
>
> > Olaf,
> >
> > I'm against even for that. MDLExample should be always in release
> package.
> > If I understand Alex's idea the things should be fixed in the commit
> time,
> > so now we have release time. We had that issue for several releases, we
> can
> > leave with it one more release.
> >
> > Thanks, Piotr
> >
> >
> > 2018-01-17 10:24 GMT+01:00 Olaf Krueger :
> >
> > > Hi Piotr,
> > > just to make sure you don't get it wrong:
> > >
> > > The idea is to just remove it from the RC2 (So from the first Royale
> > > release
> > > at the end) just in order to have some more time to fix the IP/license
> > > issues and so don't delay the release any longer.
> > >
> > > This does not mean that those examples aren't less important, of
> course!!
> > >
> > > If I understand Alex correctly, the idea is to have continuous release
> > > cycles, e.g. every 2 or 4 weeks so that we can add the MDL_Example soon
> > > again.
> > > If I can do anything, I'd like to offer some help in order to fix those
> > > issues.
> > >
> > > Is it already clear what we have to do to fix those issues?
> > > If it's not so much effort we maybe could do it right now and keep it
> > with
> > > RC2?
> > >
> > > Just my thoughts,
> > > Olaf
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > *
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>



-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi,

I think MDLExample is one of the most referred examples out there. I
couldn't follow all the discussion since I was busy with work and other
task in this project, but I read that we had some problems with images. We
can change the images for place holders. If there's some more problem I
don't know right now.

About MDLBlogExample is unfinished and can be not released. I found some
blocking problems with CSS compiler when tried to complete. If can be
removed from release but maintain the code I think it would be ok.

In the end, now we rely heavily in MDL, but we should work forward a future
where we can deprecate that library in favor of our own UI component set
that could have the same appearance with a theme.

Thanks





2018-01-17 10:28 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :

> Olaf,
>
> I'm against even for that. MDLExample should be always in release package.
> If I understand Alex's idea the things should be fixed in the commit time,
> so now we have release time. We had that issue for several releases, we can
> leave with it one more release.
>
> Thanks, Piotr
>
>
> 2018-01-17 10:24 GMT+01:00 Olaf Krueger :
>
> > Hi Piotr,
> > just to make sure you don't get it wrong:
> >
> > The idea is to just remove it from the RC2 (So from the first Royale
> > release
> > at the end) just in order to have some more time to fix the IP/license
> > issues and so don't delay the release any longer.
> >
> > This does not mean that those examples aren't less important, of course!!
> >
> > If I understand Alex correctly, the idea is to have continuous release
> > cycles, e.g. every 2 or 4 weeks so that we can add the MDL_Example soon
> > again.
> > If I can do anything, I'd like to offer some help in order to fix those
> > issues.
> >
> > Is it already clear what we have to do to fix those issues?
> > If it's not so much effort we maybe could do it right now and keep it
> with
> > RC2?
> >
> > Just my thoughts,
> > Olaf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> *
>



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

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Olaf,

I'm against even for that. MDLExample should be always in release package.
If I understand Alex's idea the things should be fixed in the commit time,
so now we have release time. We had that issue for several releases, we can
leave with it one more release.

Thanks, Piotr


2018-01-17 10:24 GMT+01:00 Olaf Krueger :

> Hi Piotr,
> just to make sure you don't get it wrong:
>
> The idea is to just remove it from the RC2 (So from the first Royale
> release
> at the end) just in order to have some more time to fix the IP/license
> issues and so don't delay the release any longer.
>
> This does not mean that those examples aren't less important, of course!!
>
> If I understand Alex correctly, the idea is to have continuous release
> cycles, e.g. every 2 or 4 weeks so that we can add the MDL_Example soon
> again.
> If I can do anything, I'd like to offer some help in order to fix those
> issues.
>
> Is it already clear what we have to do to fix those issues?
> If it's not so much effort we maybe could do it right now and keep it with
> RC2?
>
> Just my thoughts,
> Olaf
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
>



-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Olaf Krueger]

Hi Piotr,
just to make sure you don't get it wrong:

The idea is to just remove it from the RC2 (So from the first Royale release
at the end) just in order to have some more time to fix the IP/license
issues and so don't delay the release any longer.

This does not mean that those examples aren't less important, of course!!

If I understand Alex correctly, the idea is to have continuous release
cycles, e.g. every 2 or 4 weeks so that we can add the MDL_Example soon
again.
If I can do anything, I'd like to offer some help in order to fix those
issues.

Is it already clear what we have to do to fix those issues?
If it's not so much effort we maybe could do it right now and keep it with
RC2?

Just my thoughts,
Olaf






--
Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Piotr Zarzycki]

If there is unresolvable license issue which do not allow us to keep those
examples - I will get them to my private repository, than we can remove
from this project.

2018-01-17 10:02 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :

> Hi Guys,
>
> I'm definitely against of removing MDL examples. I could agree only on
> removing MDLBlogExample, because it's not finished and I'm not going to
> invest time to finish it. Unless Carlos have such pans. If we cannot
> resolve something now let's resolve it for the next release. Let's start
> RC2.
>
> Thanks, Piotr
>
>
>
> 2018-01-17 7:20 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
>
>> OK, please remove it from the release/0.9.0 branch.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 1/16/18, 10:06 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
>> Muppirala"
>>  wrote:
>>
>> >On Jan 16, 2018 8:47 PM, "Alex Harui"  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On 1/16/18, 1:13 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
>> Muppirala"
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>+1 to exclude the MDL examples from this release.  Let's find a good way
>> >>to
>> >>fix the IP issues in our next release.
>> >
>> >Speaking of removing examples...  What's up with AngularExample?  It
>> >doesn't build in Maven and there is no Ant build script for it.  Should
>> we
>> >make it work or skip around it or remove it?
>> >
>> >
>> >I think that was just an experiment.  We can in fact delete it from the
>> >codebase.
>> >
>> >I will get to it unless anyone else gets to it before me.
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >Om
>> >
>> >
>> >-Alex
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> *
>



-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Hi Guys,

I'm definitely against of removing MDL examples. I could agree only on
removing MDLBlogExample, because it's not finished and I'm not going to
invest time to finish it. Unless Carlos have such pans. If we cannot
resolve something now let's resolve it for the next release. Let's start
RC2.

Thanks, Piotr



2018-01-17 7:20 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :

> OK, please remove it from the release/0.9.0 branch.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> On 1/16/18, 10:06 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
>  wrote:
>
> >On Jan 16, 2018 8:47 PM, "Alex Harui"  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >On 1/16/18, 1:13 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>+1 to exclude the MDL examples from this release.  Let's find a good way
> >>to
> >>fix the IP issues in our next release.
> >
> >Speaking of removing examples...  What's up with AngularExample?  It
> >doesn't build in Maven and there is no Ant build script for it.  Should we
> >make it work or skip around it or remove it?
> >
> >
> >I think that was just an experiment.  We can in fact delete it from the
> >codebase.
> >
> >I will get to it unless anyone else gets to it before me.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Om
> >
> >
> >-Alex
>
>


-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Alex Harui]

OK, please remove it from the release/0.9.0 branch.

Thanks,
-Alex

On 1/16/18, 10:06 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
 wrote:

>On Jan 16, 2018 8:47 PM, "Alex Harui"  wrote:
>
>
>
>On 1/16/18, 1:13 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
> wrote:
>>
>>+1 to exclude the MDL examples from this release.  Let's find a good way
>>to
>>fix the IP issues in our next release.
>
>Speaking of removing examples...  What's up with AngularExample?  It
>doesn't build in Maven and there is no Ant build script for it.  Should we
>make it work or skip around it or remove it?
>
>
>I think that was just an experiment.  We can in fact delete it from the
>codebase.
>
>I will get to it unless anyone else gets to it before me.
>
>Thanks,
>Om
>
>
>-Alex

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Jan 16, 2018 8:47 PM, "Alex Harui"  wrote:



On 1/16/18, 1:13 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
 wrote:
>
>+1 to exclude the MDL examples from this release.  Let's find a good way
>to
>fix the IP issues in our next release.

Speaking of removing examples...  What's up with AngularExample?  It
doesn't build in Maven and there is no Ant build script for it.  Should we
make it work or skip around it or remove it?


I think that was just an experiment.  We can in fact delete it from the
codebase.

I will get to it unless anyone else gets to it before me.

Thanks,
Om


-Alex

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Dave Fisher]

Hi Justin,

We have it now and are doing the correct thing in a natural way. An Apache 
Member who was on my first PMC has explained the situation well. He calls it 
“cups and saucers” when we discovered a single GPL file had been in a few 
releases we removed it. It is best effort and sometimes things spill.

Shine the light forward.

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 16, 2018, at 9:16 PM, Justin Mclean  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> Royale is not going to operate like Flex.  We want to be more responsive
>> to our users.  So instead of conducting detailed searches for IP issues at
>> release time, they should be done at commit time or at other times.
> 
> The issue has been brought up before so is a known issue. (See that 
> discussion thread). Given that discussion I would of assumed that committers 
> wouldn't check in plain text CC-BY-SA licensed content. But I guess people 
> forget about it, I had even forgotten about that thread. If you where 
> watching the commits it would be very easy to miss the file(s) in question as 
> they also incorrectly had an ASF headers on them. But any PMC member or 
> committer could of noticed this, the fact that no one did until now probably 
> indicates how difficult it was to find. Perhaps it would be better to deal 
> with licensing issues when they are raised or soon after - especially when a 
> 3rd party doesn’t respond in a timely way?
> 
> BTW the legal JIRA about CC-SA content is here [1] not sure if you managed to 
> find that when looking at the issue.
> 
> Thanks,
> Justin
> 
> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-167

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> Can you provide a link to that discussion?

Sure here [1] As discussed in that thread I asked them to clarity what license 
the files are under [2] (way back in October 2016) and got no response. Other 
people since then have asked the same question (including Om yesterday) and not 
got any clear answers.

Thanks,
Justin

1. 
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/aa0646f937c65d66404f2a398733f7354225b5eb64e299a9d65e5139@%3Cdev.flex.apache.org%3E
2. https://github.com/google/material-design-lite/issues/4850

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Alex Harui]

On 1/16/18, 1:13 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
 wrote:
>
>+1 to exclude the MDL examples from this release.  Let's find a good way
>to
>fix the IP issues in our next release.

Speaking of removing examples...  What's up with AngularExample?  It
doesn't build in Maven and there is no Ant build script for it.  Should we
make it work or skip around it or remove it?

-Alex

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Alex Harui]

On 1/16/18, 3:32 PM, "Justin Mclean"  wrote:

>
>Yes is is unfortunate that the PMC failed to notice this issue. The issue
>had actually been brought up before the MDL code was checked in to a repo
>and there was some discussion about the issues but it wasn’t fully
>resolved. It’s unfortunate, that we forgot about that discussion, and
>that it slipped between the cracks.

Can you provide a link to that discussion?
>
>If the last call process had been followed it probably would of come up
>then rather than with the first release candidate but I’m not sure that
>would of saved any time.

Royale is not going to operate like Flex.  We want to be more responsive
to our users.  So instead of conducting detailed searches for IP issues at
release time, they should be done at commit time or at other times.

-Alex

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

>  After Justin pointed out that there is CSS under CC-BY-4.0 in 
> MDLBlogExample, I took a closer look
> and realized that really, I think these two examples are just ports of
> Google's examples and thus should remain under Google's copyright

Yep I agree with that.

> There is also a thread open on legal-discuss to verify that CSS is
> considered to be "media" and not "source code".  If it is "source code"
> then we have to treat the example as Category X and remove the CSS and
> text from the repos and releases.

Hopefully some-one on legal discuss with reply and it will be resolved quickly. 

> It is, as always, unfortunate that these issues are not discovered when these 
> files are first committed to
> the repo as has been recommended by more than one experienced Apache
> member instead of during the release process.

Yes is is unfortunate that the PMC failed to notice this issue. The issue had 
actually been brought up before the MDL code was checked in to a repo and there 
was some discussion about the issues but it wasn’t fully resolved. It’s 
unfortunate, that we forgot about that discussion, and that it slipped between 
the cracks.

If the last call process had been followed it probably would of come up then 
rather than with the first release candidate but I’m not sure that would of 
saved any time.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Alex Harui 
wrote:

> Thanks Olaf!  Good to know that we don't have that restriction anymore.
>
> I'd like to get Piotr and Carlos's opinions about removing the MDL
> examples since they worked so hard on it.  I'm finishing up changing the
> file headers to reflect that these two examples are under Google's
> copyright and license.
>

+1 to exclude the MDL examples from this release.  Let's find a good way to
fix the IP issues in our next release.

Thanks,
Om


>
> -Alex
>
> On 1/16/18, 12:47 PM, "Olaf Krueger"  wrote:
>
> >Alex, it works [1]
> >
> >Regarding the MDL examples:
> >If there still IP and license issues left I would like to suggest to
> >remove
> >the affected examples from RC2 until we've resolved those problems. (I am
> >not sure if you already did it).
> >
> >Regarding the [y]/[n] questions during the approval:
> >During my tests, I've always entered [y] like a monkey with the focus on
> >testing the script.
> >What does this question about 'unexpected binaries' [2] mean and how
> >should
> >I check it?
> >
> >However, I am looking forward to the RC2 and, hopefully, a smooth release
> >process :-)
> >Thanks for your patient!
> >
> >Olaf
> >
> >
> >[1]
> >BUILD SUCCESSFUL
> >Total time: 34 minutes 42 seconds
> >
> >[2]
> >Check that there are no unexpected binaries.  Is it ok? (y, [n])
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Sent from:
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fapache-roy
> >ale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
> %7
> >C066714a0a4d14f01d85808d55d22621f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7
> >C0%7C636517324616345561=RtRvGTu1N2FPJSB7Y3np6Q%
> 2Fn%2BIZzYHCg5%2F%2Bi
> >b%2BUnN%2Bc%3D=0
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Alex Harui]

Ah yes, that's a bug that has already been fixed for RC2.  It doesn't
happen when you first run a build in the source folder but now you are
running a build for the second time.  Try deleting the
apache-royale-0.9.0-src/royale-asjs/lib and
apache-royale-0.9.0-src/royale-asjs/js/lib folders and try again.

HTH,
-Alex

On 1/16/18, 11:32 AM, "Olaf Krueger"  wrote:

>Hi Alex,
>I've stumbled over the next issue [1].
>It seems to me that externc is not available?
>Any ideas?
>
>Thanks,
>Olaf
>
>[1]
>download:
>C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-asjs
>Expanding:
>C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-asjs
>\js\lib\google\closure-compiler\compiler.jar
>into C:\local\apache-royale\release-p
> 
>rocess\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-typedefs\js\target\temp\externs
>Expanding:
>C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-type
>defs\js\target\temp\externs\externs.zip
>into C:\local\apache-royale\release-proces
>  
>s\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-typedefs\js\target\downloads
>Getting:
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstorage.g
>oogleapis.com%2Fgoogle-code-archive-downloads%2Fv2%2Fcode.google.com%2Fclo
>sureidl%2Fsvg.js=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb05e03660541413e1c060
>8d55d17e80f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63651727962185938
>3=GO4%2F8%2FcWVvk2MhohqRZL6FElZK5Bjq1r0TmZuzm7ETc%3D=0
>To:
>C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-type
>defs\js\target\downloads\svg.js
>
>double-check-file:
>${env.ROYALE_DOWNLOAD_CACHE}
>Need file: ${still_no_file}
>
>get-from-cache-if-needed:
>
>fail-if-not-found:
>
>preprocess:
>
>externc:
>Fehler: Hauptklasse org.apache.royale.compiler.clients.EXTERNC konnte
>nicht
>gefunden oder geladen werden
>(Error: Main class org.apache.royale.compiler.clients.EXTERNC could not
>found or loaded)
>
>BUILD FAILED
>C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\ApproveRoyale.xml:721: The
>following
>error occurred while executing this line:
>C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-asjs
>\build.xml:1752:
>The following error occurred while executing this line:
>C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-asjs
>\build.xml:1824:
>The following error occurred while executing this line:
>C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-type
>defs\build.xml:52:
>The following error occurred while executing this line:
>C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-type
>defs\js\build.xml:159:
>Java returned: 1
>
>Total time: 3 minutes 55 seconds
>
>
>
>
>--
>Sent from: 
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-roy
>ale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7
>Cb05e03660541413e1c0608d55d17e80f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7
>C0%7C636517279621859383=lU5xfEz2pYOxJFga5IuIg9EApYaXK%2FuSG%2FLWj0zS
>SXM%3D=0

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Olaf Krueger]

Hi Alex,
I've stumbled over the next issue [1].
It seems to me that externc is not available?
Any ideas?

Thanks,
Olaf

[1]
download:
C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-asjs
Expanding:
C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-asjs\js\lib\google\closure-compiler\compiler.jar
into C:\local\apache-royale\release-p  
rocess\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-typedefs\js\target\temp\externs
Expanding:
C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-typedefs\js\target\temp\externs\externs.zip
into C:\local\apache-royale\release-proces  

s\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-typedefs\js\target\downloads
Getting:
https://storage.googleapis.com/google-code-archive-downloads/v2/code.google.com/closureidl/svg.js
To:
C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-typedefs\js\target\downloads\svg.js

double-check-file:
${env.ROYALE_DOWNLOAD_CACHE}
Need file: ${still_no_file}

get-from-cache-if-needed:

fail-if-not-found:

preprocess:

externc:
Fehler: Hauptklasse org.apache.royale.compiler.clients.EXTERNC konnte nicht
gefunden oder geladen werden
(Error: Main class org.apache.royale.compiler.clients.EXTERNC could not
found or loaded)

BUILD FAILED
C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\ApproveRoyale.xml:721: The following
error occurred while executing this line:
C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-asjs\build.xml:1752:
The following error occurred while executing this line:
C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-asjs\build.xml:1824:
The following error occurred while executing this line:
C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-typedefs\build.xml:52:
The following error occurred while executing this line:
C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-typedefs\js\build.xml:159:
Java returned: 1

Total time: 3 minutes 55 seconds




--
Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Alex Harui]

Olaf is correct.  He can just try hand-patching the files that have been
downloaded and expanded in the folder where he is running
ApproveRoyale.xml.  There should be an apache-royals-0.9.0-src folder with
a royale-asjs/examples/royale/DataBindingExample_Flat subfolder.  Running
the "build" target in Ant should help us find out if the build will finish
without the Flash/AIR environment variables.

I'm waiting on the Olaf's results before cutting an RC2.  I'd like the
examples to build without Flash/AIR.  Also, I'm making changes to
MDLBlogExample and I think MDLExample as well.  After Justin pointed out
that there is CSS under CC-BY-4.0 in MDLBlogExample, I took a closer look
and realized that really, I think these two examples are just ports of
Google's examples and thus should remain under Google's copyright, and
that we should clearly mark the boundaries of the CC-BY-4.0 CSS.  Some of
the text used in the example is also CC-BY-4.0.

There is also a thread open on legal-discuss to verify that CSS is
considered to be "media" and not "source code".  If it is "source code"
then we have to treat the example as Category X and remove the CSS and
text from the repos and releases.  It is, as always, unfortunate that
these issues are not discovered when these files are first committed to
the repo as has been recommended by more than one experienced Apache
member instead of during the release process.

Hopefully we'll see RC2 soon.

-Alex

On 1/16/18, 2:12 AM, "Olaf Krueger"  wrote:

>Piotr,
>I guess this time I understand what to do...hopefully ;-):
>
>Alex made a change at one of the examples at the release/0.9.0 branch.
>Because the distribution server does not contain this change I can't
>continue testing.
>
>So, in order to continue testing I have to adopt Alex change to my local
>copy (which originally was downloaded from the distribution server by
>using
>the approval script) and after making chances I just have to run/test just
>the build.
>
>Thanks,
>Olaf
>
>
>
>--
>Sent from: 
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-roy
>ale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7
>C19fd212b71614b56ae6f08d55ccaec08%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7
>C0%7C636516948969228487=FoNZH5kWbppMWhLkLAXBHofzysIHXgFiqIAD4y4L0Zw%
>3D=0

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Olaf Krueger]

Piotr,
I guess this time I understand what to do...hopefully ;-):

Alex made a change at one of the examples at the release/0.9.0 branch.
Because the distribution server does not contain this change I can't
continue testing.

So, in order to continue testing I have to adopt Alex change to my local
copy (which originally was downloaded from the distribution server by using
the approval script) and after making chances I just have to run/test just
the build.

Thanks,
Olaf



--
Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Alex Harui]

I have not created a new RC with that change.  You can make the change
locally and run just the build portion of the approval script by running:

Ant -e -f ApproveRoyale.xml -Drelease.version=0.9.0 -Drc=1 build

Thanks,
-Alex

On 1/15/18, 1:01 PM, "Olaf Krueger"  wrote:

>Hi Alex,
>the build still fails for me with the same issue [1].
>
>I can see your fix on the asjs GitHub release/0.9.0 branch [2].
>But it seems to me that the distribution which I guess is used by the
>script
>[3] does not contain your fix.
>I thought that this happens automatically... is there some manual work
>needed?
>
>Thanks,
>Olaf
>
>[1]  
>unable to open 
>'C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0
>  
>-src\royale-asjs\frameworks\libs\Flat.swc'.
>
>[2]
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
>m%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fblob%2Frelease%2F0.9.0%2Fexamples%2Froyale%2FDa
>taBindingExample_Flat%2Fsrc%2Fmain%2Fconfig%2Fcompile-app-config.xml%23L25
>=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca8c385d5f5ca40b5f7ea08d55c5b36b3%7Cfa
>7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636516469185711888=WLbK9fwe
>OHAVinMU5w%2FrTjLSyXAh41A%2BhvgEiPkQQoI%3D=0
>
>[3]
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdist.apac
>he.org%2Frepos%2Fdist%2Fdev%2Froyale%2F0.9.0%2Frc1%2F=02%7C01%7Caharu
>i%40adobe.com%7Ca8c385d5f5ca40b5f7ea08d55c5b36b3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c
>178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636516469185711888=dKXbJHcN0XHCjYUL9VKtNXdyqV7PR
>p6o1bFHB%2FYgLrk%3D=0
>
>
>
>--
>Sent from: 
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-roy
>ale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7
>Ca8c385d5f5ca40b5f7ea08d55c5b36b3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7
>C0%7C636516469185711888=oKUs9JKgeqbTSnoSNroZOsOxrhBgTamm67%2FUE93l5z
>o%3D=0

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Olaf Krueger]

Hi Alex,
the build still fails for me with the same issue [1].

I can see your fix on the asjs GitHub release/0.9.0 branch [2].
But it seems to me that the distribution which I guess is used by the script
[3] does not contain your fix.
I thought that this happens automatically... is there some manual work
needed?

Thanks,
Olaf

[1]  
unable to open 'C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0  

-src\royale-asjs\frameworks\libs\Flat.swc'.

[2]
https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/blob/release/0.9.0/examples/royale/DataBindingExample_Flat/src/main/config/compile-app-config.xml#L25

[3]
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/royale/0.9.0/rc1/



--
Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Olaf Krueger]

Hi Alex,

>I pushed a change to the release/0.9.0 branch that appears to fix it.

Thanks! I will check it out tonight and will fix other examples this way if
needed.

But honestly, I don't understand how it works:
Does it mean that those examples which depends on a *JS.swc (like
FlatJS.swc) lib file, cannot compiled to Flash/AIR?
Or are there additional configs for Flash/AIR?

And one additional, probably stupid question regarding the approval script:
Does it compile to JSonly if no environment vars are set and no dependencies
like playerglobal are available? And if all Flash/AIR dependcies are set,
does it compile to Flash and JS? 

Thanks!

Olaf









--
Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Olaf Krueger]

Hi Alex,
for my understanding, the "DataBindingExample_Flat" example depends on
"Flat.swc" [1] and in opposition to what I've said before, this is not
available in my local folder 'apache-royale-0.9.0-src' during the build (I
thought it is available, but it is only available in
'apache-royale-0.9.0-bin'). 
The script complained: "unable to open
'...\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-asjs\frameworks\libs\Flat.swc'".

Unfortunately, this build stuff feels like a black box for me. I've no idea
where I could start to investigate or what I have to change in order to make
the particular "DataBindingExample_Flat" work.
Any help appreciate!

Thanks,
Olaf


[1]
royale-asjs/examples/royale/DataBindingExample_Flat/src/main/config/compile-app-config.xml


skipAsCoercions



../../../../../../frameworks/libs/Flat.swc






--
Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Alex Harui]

Hi Olaf,

I think I may have added -Dplayerglobal.version=28.0 as well as setting
PLAYERGLOBAL_VERSION.

However, yes, I am more interested in seeing if the script will run
without any of AIR_HOME/PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME/FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER set.  So
not only should you remove the checks in ApproveRoyale.xml, but also make
sure those three are not set in the environment.  If some of those three
are set, the build will take different paths.  I don't have time to dig
into it, but I don’t' think that there should be a
frameworks/libs/Flat.swc if those 3 aren't around.

It could be that the examples still have assumptions about SWF support.
Maybe you can investigate.

The rules for a PMC voter requires testing a release built from the source
package.  Only a source package is truly verifiable as being the same as
some other set of files.  So, we can't rely on automated builds per-se.
We could rely on the output of the automated builds to generate the source
package, but you'd still have to build that source package.  (FWIW, we
don't rely on automated builds for our source packages because we are
trying to use the Maven release process to generate the sources we then
package into the release candidate).

The Approval Script just calls the main build in the Ant build script.
The Ant build script checks for AIR_HOME and then does different things if
it sees it or not.  The main build of the SWCs seems to work, but it could
be we have issues in examples.

HTH, and thanks for testing this stuff.
-Alex

On 1/13/18, 1:10 PM, "Olaf Krueger"  wrote:

>Hi
>
>It seems to me that "PLAYERGLOBAL_VERSION" does not work for me for
>whatever
>reason:
>After setting "PLAYERGLOBAL_VERSION=28.0" the script is still complaining
>that "playerglobal.version" should 11.1.
>So I removed "PLAYERGLOBAL_VERSION" and set "PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME" to
>playerglobal.swc version 11.1.
>This works but after a while, a new issue occurs ("Language.swc is not
>found?") [1].
>
>However, if I understand it correctly, you want from me to remove those
>lines [2] from the approval script in order to test if it works without
>the
>AIR/Flash dependencies.
>So I've removed those ENV vars
>(AIR_HOME/PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME/FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER) and executes the
>modified
>script.
>It looks good but the build failed cause of an issue with the
>DataBindingExample_Flat [3].
>It complains that "frameworks\libs\Flat.swc is not found"... I took a look
>at the folder and it is there.
>
>I am done for today but two questions are left for now:
>My understanding is that we have automated builds.
>Why do we need to test the build process locally instead of just using an
>automatically created  (release candidate) build in order to approve a
>release?
>How does the approval script work without providing those ENV vars?
>
>Thanks,
>Olaf
>
>
>[1]
>Writing file: js\out\org\apache\royale\utils\Language.js
>4.30332045 seconds
>Copying 1 file to
>C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src
>  
> 
>\royale-asjs\frameworks\js\libs
>
>main:
>
>copy-swc:
>
>BUILD FAILED
>C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\ApproveRoyale.xml:742: The
>following
>erro  
>  
>r occurred while executing this line:
>C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-asjs
>\build
>  
>.xml:643: The following error occurred while executing this line:
>C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-asjs
>\frame
>  
>works\build.xml:111: The following error occurred while executing this
>line:
>C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-asjs
>\frame
>  
>works\build.xml:293: The following error occurred while executing this
>line:
>C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-asjs
>\frame
>  
>works\projects\Language\build.xml:44: Warning: Could not find file
>C:\local\apac 
>  
>he-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-asjs\frameworks\p
>roject
>  
>s\Language\target\Language.swc to copy.
>
>Total time: 18 minutes 23 seconds
>
>[2]
>  type="dir" 
>   property="AIR_HOME" value="${env.AIR_HOME}" />
>
>unless="AIR_HOME"/>
>   
>type="dir"
>property="PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME" value="${env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME}" />
>
>unless="PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME"/>
>
>type="file"
>property="FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER"
>value="${env.FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER}"
>/>
>
>unless="FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER"/>
>
>
>[3]
>--
>C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-asjs
>\examp
>les\royale\DataBindingExample_Flat/src/main/royale/DataBindingExample.mxml
>2.045206633 seconds
>C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-asjs

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Olaf Krueger]

Hi

It seems to me that "PLAYERGLOBAL_VERSION" does not work for me for whatever
reason:
After setting "PLAYERGLOBAL_VERSION=28.0" the script is still complaining
that "playerglobal.version" should 11.1.
So I removed "PLAYERGLOBAL_VERSION" and set "PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME" to
playerglobal.swc version 11.1.
This works but after a while, a new issue occurs ("Language.swc is not
found?") [1].

However, if I understand it correctly, you want from me to remove those
lines [2] from the approval script in order to test if it works without the
AIR/Flash dependencies.
So I've removed those ENV vars
(AIR_HOME/PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME/FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER) and executes the modified
script.
It looks good but the build failed cause of an issue with the
DataBindingExample_Flat [3].
It complains that "frameworks\libs\Flat.swc is not found"... I took a look
at the folder and it is there.

I am done for today but two questions are left for now:
My understanding is that we have automated builds.
Why do we need to test the build process locally instead of just using an
automatically created  (release candidate) build in order to approve a
release?
How does the approval script work without providing those ENV vars?

Thanks,
Olaf


[1]
Writing file: js\out\org\apache\royale\utils\Language.js
4.30332045 seconds
Copying 1 file to
C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src  
 
\royale-asjs\frameworks\js\libs

main:

copy-swc:

BUILD FAILED
C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\ApproveRoyale.xml:742: The following
erro
   
r occurred while executing this line:
C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-asjs\build

   
.xml:643: The following error occurred while executing this line:
C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-asjs\frame

   
works\build.xml:111: The following error occurred while executing this line:
C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-asjs\frame

   
works\build.xml:293: The following error occurred while executing this line:
C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-asjs\frame

   
works\projects\Language\build.xml:44: Warning: Could not find file
C:\local\apac   

he-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-asjs\frameworks\project

   
s\Language\target\Language.swc to copy.

Total time: 18 minutes 23 seconds

[2]













[3]
--
C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-asjs\examp

les\royale\DataBindingExample_Flat/src/main/royale/DataBindingExample.mxml
2.045206633 seconds
C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-asjs\examp

les\royale\DataBindingExample_Flat\src\main\config\compile-app-config.xml(26):
c ol: 0 unable to open
'C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0 
   
-src\royale-asjs\frameworks\libs\Flat.swc'.
C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-asjs\examp

les\royale\DataBindingExample_Flat\src\main\config\compile-app-config.xml
(line:  26)





BUILD FAILED
C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\ApproveRoyale.xml:722: The following
erro r occurred while
executing this line:
C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-asjs\build

.xml:635: The following error occurred while executing this line:
C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-asjs\examp

les\build.xml:85: The following error occurred while executing this line:
C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-asjs\examp

les\build_example.xml:157: mxmlc task failed.

Total time: 23 minutes 29 seconds




--
Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Alex Harui]

On 1/12/18, 12:18 AM, "Olaf Krueger"  wrote:

>>I mentioned elsewhere that setting an environment variable of
>>PLAYERGLOBAL_VERSION worked for me.
>
>I overlooked this and will check it out.
>Should I set the version in a format like "28.0" or "28" or "28_0"?

28.0
>
>>Also, I still think it would be helpful if you would just remove the
>>checks for AIR_HOME/PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME/FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER and see what
>>else needs to change to get the approval script to run without those
>>variables. 
> 
>I will do it tonight or tomorow!
>
>Just for my understanding, even if it seems to me that the approval script
>just downloads an available build from a server:
>I've never done this "build" excercise with Flex and I am not familar with
>build tools. But I was confused about those ENV vars and AIR/Flash
>dependencies. My assumption was that the build tool downloads all needed
>dependencies and set the ENV vars temporary for me. Isn't that what I want
>from a build tool?

The approval script just tries to type stuff into the command-line that
you should do in order to verify a release candidate.  It doesn't download
AIR and Flash because most folks already have AIR and Flash somewhere.
But if you want to add such a capability to the script go ahead.

However, we did to a fair amount of work to get the build to pass without
AIR and Flash around, but I forgot to adjust the script to not require AIR
and Flash and test it to see if it worked.  I'm still wrestling with Maven
and its version management in the POMs otherwise I would test it myself.
Any help is appreciated.

Thanks,
-Alex
>
>
>
>--
>Sent from: 
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-roy
>ale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7
>C7ef0dd30efb845e9bd8108d55995236c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7
>C0%7C636513419473674771=2O0gwxtFG6ekHkT%2F0ZiR10j5Fn107xJ0eQN6LDzDu4
>0%3D=0

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Olaf Krueger]

>I mentioned elsewhere that setting an environment variable of
>PLAYERGLOBAL_VERSION worked for me.

I overlooked this and will check it out.
Should I set the version in a format like "28.0" or "28" or "28_0"?

>Also, I still think it would be helpful if you would just remove the
>checks for AIR_HOME/PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME/FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER and see what
>else needs to change to get the approval script to run without those
>variables. 
 
I will do it tonight or tomorow!

Just for my understanding, even if it seems to me that the approval script
just downloads an available build from a server:
I've never done this "build" excercise with Flex and I am not familar with
build tools. But I was confused about those ENV vars and AIR/Flash
dependencies. My assumption was that the build tool downloads all needed
dependencies and set the ENV vars temporary for me. Isn't that what I want
from a build tool?


Thanks,
Olaf






--
Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Alex Harui]

Olaf,

I mentioned elsewhere that setting an environment variable of
PLAYERGLOBAL_VERSION worked for me.

Also, I still think it would be helpful if you would just remove the
checks for AIR_HOME/PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME/FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER and see what
else needs to change to get the approval script to run without those
variables.  If you don't do it, I will do it later, but someone should do
it.

Thanks,
-Alex

On 1/11/18, 2:57 PM, "Olaf Krueger"  wrote:

>The keys are working now.
>Now I stumble over the playerglobal version issue [1] which others also
>had.
>Will continue tomorrow with downloading playerglobal 11.1... wanna cry ;-)
>
>Thanks,
>Olaf
>
>[1] playerglobal.version is 11.1
>
>
>
>
>--
>Sent from: 
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-roy
>ale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7
>C9b98a1833ef547c2086808d55946ad0d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7
>C0%7C636513082452569870=VKa8JUac82aLLhmbpHwXT6Up6pnsXETE8O05klU0LUw%
>3D=0

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Olaf Krueger]

The keys are working now.
Now I stumble over the playerglobal version issue [1] which others also had.
Will continue tomorrow with downloading playerglobal 11.1... wanna cry ;-)

Thanks,
Olaf

[1] playerglobal.version is 11.1




--
Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Alex Harui]

Have you imported the public keys from Flex?  If not, you may need to
import them.

This made me realize that we hadn't published a KEYS file for ROYALE so I
quickly put one together at
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/royale/KEYS

Download and import it into GPG and try again.

HTH,
-Alex

On 1/11/18, 1:28 PM, "Olaf Krueger"  wrote:

>Hi,
>I also downloaded "FlashPlayer projector content debugger" and link
>FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER to it.
>Now the script seems to work but it fails because of a signature issue
>[1].
>
>I notice that others voted with +1 including a proper 'signatures match'?
>Do I am something wrong?
>
>Thanks,
>Olaf
>
>[1] 
>gpg_check:
>gpg: Signature made Mo,  8. Jan 2018 07:18:07 using RSA key ID
>DA9CCFF2
>gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
>
>BUILD FAILED
>C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\ApproveRoyale.xml:284: The
>following
>erro r occurred while executing this
>line:
>C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\ApproveRoyale.xml:288: exec
>returned:
>2
>
>
>
>
>--
>Sent from: 
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-roy
>ale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7
>Cefbf515f97734cddb15908d5593a4386%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7
>C0%7C636513029253502252=527Qpg0HtNW9%2BzI6dKf2Enik3gu0apZqO%2FqtUszb
>bjU%3D=0

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Olaf Krueger]

Hi,
I also downloaded "FlashPlayer projector content debugger" and link
FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER to it.
Now the script seems to work but it fails because of a signature issue [1].

I notice that others voted with +1 including a proper 'signatures match'?
Do I am something wrong?

Thanks,
Olaf

[1] 
gpg_check:
gpg: Signature made Mo,  8. Jan 2018 07:18:07 using RSA key ID DA9CCFF2
gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found

BUILD FAILED
C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\ApproveRoyale.xml:284: The following
erro r occurred while executing this
line:
C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\ApproveRoyale.xml:288: exec returned:
2




--
Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Olaf Krueger]

Alex Harui-2 wrote
> For me, line 83 is blank.  What do you see?  Maybe it is a code-page
> issue?

Sorry for the noise guys, it was my fault one more time:
I've just copied and pasted the XML in order to create a local file which
was obviously not a good idea because of code-page issues :-(
I just took a look at the original script file and noticed that it is
well-formed, without any issues.

Sorry again and thanks for help!
I'll set my ENV vars later in order to run the script completely...

Olaf

[1] This is the line, the '' is already there: 
https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/blob/release/0.9.0/ApproveRoyale.xml#L119




--
Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Just stupid thing - Can system different language than English have some
influence on that ?



2018-01-11 19:19 GMT+01:00 Yishay Weiss <yishayj...@hotmail.com>:

> My line 83 is blank too, using windows. Olaf, maybe you can post the
> contents of your ApproveRoyale.xml somewhere?
>
>
>
> 
> From: Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 7:26:27 PM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1
>
> For me, line 83 is blank.  What do you see?  Maybe it is a code-page issue?
>
> -Alex
>
> On 1/11/18, 7:27 AM, "Olaf Krueger" <m...@olafkrueger.net> wrote:
>
> >> Try taking out the requirements...
> >I will check it out!
> >
> >Regarding the approval script:
> >I am pretty sure that this script is not well-formed XML.
> >The '<' is not allowed in line 83 because it is not allowed with XML to
> >have
> >this '<' character in attribute values. I guess we have to replace it by
> >'<'
> >
> >I wonder why that works fine for everyone...
> >
> >I could replace it but I am afraid of breaking something ;-)
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Olaf
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Sent from:
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fapache-roy
> >ale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
> %7
> >Cb51edb752b9c4f75357c08d55907cc6c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7
> >C0%7C636512812388118273=FTBbwqeFuKpgiPk7ZTSh8wohGj83Zg
> eWWA3f13tjTMg%
> >3D=0
>
>


-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Olaf Krueger]

> Try taking out the requirements...
I will check it out!

Regarding the approval script:
I am pretty sure that this script is not well-formed XML.
The '<' is not allowed in line 83 because it is not allowed with XML to have
this '<' character in attribute values. I guess we have to replace it by
''

I wonder why that works fine for everyone...

I could replace it but I am afraid of breaking something ;-)

Thanks,
Olaf



--
Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Alex Harui]

Olaf,

Gee, I completely forgot to test out removing the environment variable
restrictions.  Try taking out the requirements for
AIR_HOME/PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME/FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER and see how far you get.

Thanks,
-Alex


On 1/10/18, 12:06 PM, "Olaf Krueger"  wrote:

>> ant -e -f ApproveRoyale.xml -Drelease.version=0.9.0 -Drc=1
>
>Yes, I used this.
>Because the error message is something like " '<' is not allowed in row
>83"
>of the script, I just removed it.
>Now ant complains that AIR_HOME is not set or passed with the command [1].
>
>I am still not familiar with all this AIR and PLAYERGOBAL stuff.
>Do I have to set the ENVIRONMENT vars at first and do I also have to
>install
>AIR and playergobal.swc manually in order to get this script work?
>
>Thanks,
>Olaf
>
>[1]
>BUILD FAILED
>C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\ApproveRoyale.xml:76: The AIR_HOME
>property is not set in environment or command-line.
>
>
>
>
>--
>Sent from: 
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-roy
>ale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7
>C06841a85e2c54ca6914308d558659c18%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7
>C0%7C636512116448180433=GsgFRBkh8TfPJnSsikVJ7uj%2F70d66cBDPdrZ1OvmpM
>c%3D=0

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[piotrz]

Olaf,

My environment variable looks like that:

AIR_HOME=path to Flex SDK 4.16.1 with Adobe Air 28
FLEX_HOME=path to flex sdk
PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME=d:\flex_sdk\player

In player I have folders: 

 

Thanks,
Piotr



--
Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Olaf Krueger]

> ant -e -f ApproveRoyale.xml -Drelease.version=0.9.0 -Drc=1

Yes, I used this.
Because the error message is something like " '<' is not allowed in row 83"
of the script, I just removed it.
Now ant complains that AIR_HOME is not set or passed with the command [1].

I am still not familiar with all this AIR and PLAYERGOBAL stuff.
Do I have to set the ENVIRONMENT vars at first and do I also have to install
AIR and playergobal.swc manually in order to get this script work?

Thanks,
Olaf

[1]
BUILD FAILED
C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\ApproveRoyale.xml:76: The AIR_HOME
property is not set in environment or command-line.




--
Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi Piotr,

ok, thanks

2018-01-10 10:45 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :

> Hi Carlos,
>
> Responding in the Discussion Thread. We may try for the next version. Alex
> did correction in the Develop, so we are good.
>
> Thanks for the link!
> Piotr
>
>
> 2018-01-09 23:47 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :
>
> > Hi Olaf,
> >
> > It is definitely not your fault. It is because HelloWorld pom.xml is not
> > prepared to build without parent etc. I have tweaked pom a big. Please
> > download this one and try to build [1]. You may get question about
> > accepting license for playerglobal, just type "y".
> >
> > [1] https://paste.apache.org/gUV0
> >
> > Thanks, Piotr
> >
> > 2018-01-09 22:36 GMT+01:00 Olaf Krueger :
> >
> >> I hopefully did all the things as you've described it.
> >> But unfortunately, it fails for me.
> >> Hope this helps [1].
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Olaf
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> $ mvn clean install -s settings-template.xml
> >>
> >> [INFO] Scanning for projects...
> >> Downloading from apache-staging:
> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositor
> >> ies/orgapacheroyale-1009/org/apache/royale/examples/examples
> >> -royale/0.9.0/exampl
> >> es-royale-0.9.0.pom
> >> Downloading from central:
> >> https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/royale
> >> /examples/examples-royale/0.9.0/examples-royale-0.9.0.pom
> >> [ERROR] [ERROR] Some problems were encountered while processing the
> POMs:
> >> [FATAL] Non-resolvable parent POM for
> >> org.apache.royale.examples:HelloWorld:0.9.
> >> 0: Could not find artifact
> >> org.apache.royale.examples:examples-royale:pom:0.9.0
> >> in apache-staging
> >> (https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacher
> >> oyale-1009/) and 'parent.relativePath' points at wrong local POM @ line
> >> 23,
> >> colu
> >> mn 11
> >>  @
> >> [ERROR] The build could not read 1 project -> [Help 1]
> >> [ERROR]
> >> [ERROR]   The project org.apache.royale.examples:HelloWorld:0.9.0
> >> (C:\local\apac
> >> he-royale\sdks\apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin\royale-asjs\ex
> >> amples\royale\HelloW
> >> orld\pom.xml) has 1 error
> >> [ERROR] Non-resolvable parent POM for
> >> org.apache.royale.examples:HelloWorld:
> >> 0.9.0: Could not find artifact
> >> org.apache.royale.examples:examples-royale:pom:0.
> >> 9.0 in apache-staging
> >> (https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapa
> >> cheroyale-1009/) and 'parent.relativePath' points at wrong local POM @
> >> line
> >> 23,
> >> column 11 -> [Help 2]
> >> [ERROR]
> >> [ERROR] To see the full stack trace of the errors, re-run Maven with the
> >> -e
> >> swit
> >> ch.
> >> [ERROR] Re-run Maven using the -X switch to enable full debug logging.
> >> [ERROR]
> >> [ERROR] For more information about the errors and possible solutions,
> >> please
> >> rea
> >> d the following articles:
> >> [ERROR] [Help 1]
> >> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/ProjectBuildin
> >> gException
> >> [ERROR] [Help 2]
> >> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/UnresolvableMo
> >> delException
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > *
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> *
>



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

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Hi Carlos,

Responding in the Discussion Thread. We may try for the next version. Alex
did correction in the Develop, so we are good.

Thanks for the link!
Piotr


2018-01-09 23:47 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :

> Hi Olaf,
>
> It is definitely not your fault. It is because HelloWorld pom.xml is not
> prepared to build without parent etc. I have tweaked pom a big. Please
> download this one and try to build [1]. You may get question about
> accepting license for playerglobal, just type "y".
>
> [1] https://paste.apache.org/gUV0
>
> Thanks, Piotr
>
> 2018-01-09 22:36 GMT+01:00 Olaf Krueger :
>
>> I hopefully did all the things as you've described it.
>> But unfortunately, it fails for me.
>> Hope this helps [1].
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Olaf
>>
>> [1]
>> $ mvn clean install -s settings-template.xml
>>
>> [INFO] Scanning for projects...
>> Downloading from apache-staging:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositor
>> ies/orgapacheroyale-1009/org/apache/royale/examples/examples
>> -royale/0.9.0/exampl
>> es-royale-0.9.0.pom
>> Downloading from central:
>> https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/royale
>> /examples/examples-royale/0.9.0/examples-royale-0.9.0.pom
>> [ERROR] [ERROR] Some problems were encountered while processing the POMs:
>> [FATAL] Non-resolvable parent POM for
>> org.apache.royale.examples:HelloWorld:0.9.
>> 0: Could not find artifact
>> org.apache.royale.examples:examples-royale:pom:0.9.0
>> in apache-staging
>> (https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacher
>> oyale-1009/) and 'parent.relativePath' points at wrong local POM @ line
>> 23,
>> colu
>> mn 11
>>  @
>> [ERROR] The build could not read 1 project -> [Help 1]
>> [ERROR]
>> [ERROR]   The project org.apache.royale.examples:HelloWorld:0.9.0
>> (C:\local\apac
>> he-royale\sdks\apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin\royale-asjs\ex
>> amples\royale\HelloW
>> orld\pom.xml) has 1 error
>> [ERROR] Non-resolvable parent POM for
>> org.apache.royale.examples:HelloWorld:
>> 0.9.0: Could not find artifact
>> org.apache.royale.examples:examples-royale:pom:0.
>> 9.0 in apache-staging
>> (https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapa
>> cheroyale-1009/) and 'parent.relativePath' points at wrong local POM @
>> line
>> 23,
>> column 11 -> [Help 2]
>> [ERROR]
>> [ERROR] To see the full stack trace of the errors, re-run Maven with the
>> -e
>> swit
>> ch.
>> [ERROR] Re-run Maven using the -X switch to enable full debug logging.
>> [ERROR]
>> [ERROR] For more information about the errors and possible solutions,
>> please
>> rea
>> d the following articles:
>> [ERROR] [Help 1]
>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/ProjectBuildin
>> gException
>> [ERROR] [Help 2]
>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/UnresolvableMo
>> delException
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> *
>



-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Hi Olaf,

It is definitely not your fault. It is because HelloWorld pom.xml is not
prepared to build without parent etc. I have tweaked pom a big. Please
download this one and try to build [1]. You may get question about
accepting license for playerglobal, just type "y".

[1] https://paste.apache.org/gUV0

Thanks, Piotr

2018-01-09 22:36 GMT+01:00 Olaf Krueger :

> I hopefully did all the things as you've described it.
> But unfortunately, it fails for me.
> Hope this helps [1].
>
> Thanks,
> Olaf
>
> [1]
> $ mvn clean install -s settings-template.xml
>
> [INFO] Scanning for projects...
> Downloading from apache-staging:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositor
> ies/orgapacheroyale-1009/org/apache/royale/examples/
> examples-royale/0.9.0/exampl
> es-royale-0.9.0.pom
> Downloading from central:
> https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/royale
> /examples/examples-royale/0.9.0/examples-royale-0.9.0.pom
> [ERROR] [ERROR] Some problems were encountered while processing the POMs:
> [FATAL] Non-resolvable parent POM for
> org.apache.royale.examples:HelloWorld:0.9.
> 0: Could not find artifact
> org.apache.royale.examples:examples-royale:pom:0.9.0
> in apache-staging
> (https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacher
> oyale-1009/) and 'parent.relativePath' points at wrong local POM @ line 23,
> colu
> mn 11
>  @
> [ERROR] The build could not read 1 project -> [Help 1]
> [ERROR]
> [ERROR]   The project org.apache.royale.examples:HelloWorld:0.9.0
> (C:\local\apac
> he-royale\sdks\apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin\royale-asjs\
> examples\royale\HelloW
> orld\pom.xml) has 1 error
> [ERROR] Non-resolvable parent POM for
> org.apache.royale.examples:HelloWorld:
> 0.9.0: Could not find artifact
> org.apache.royale.examples:examples-royale:pom:0.
> 9.0 in apache-staging
> (https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapa
> cheroyale-1009/) and 'parent.relativePath' points at wrong local POM @ line
> 23,
> column 11 -> [Help 2]
> [ERROR]
> [ERROR] To see the full stack trace of the errors, re-run Maven with the -e
> swit
> ch.
> [ERROR] Re-run Maven using the -X switch to enable full debug logging.
> [ERROR]
> [ERROR] For more information about the errors and possible solutions,
> please
> rea
> d the following articles:
> [ERROR] [Help 1]
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/ProjectBuildin
> gException
> [ERROR] [Help 2]
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/UnresolvableMo
> delException
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
>



-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Olaf Krueger  wrote:

> The ApproveRoyale script fails for me [1][2].
> I've just installed ant on my Windows 10 machine and followed the
> instructions.
>
> I have to admit that I have no experience with ant...
> Does it mean that the script is not "well-formed"?
> Or does it mean that the error "The release version is not set" occurs?
>
> Or do I something wrong?
>
> Thanks,
> Olaf
>
>
> [1] Ant error message (translated from german)
> BUILD FAILED
> C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\ApproveRoyale.xml:83:
> Character "<" is not allowed for value of attribute "message" which is
> linked with element type "fail"
>
> [1] Row 83:
>  -Drelease.version=release version (e.g. 3.1, 3.2, etc)>"
> unless="release.version"/>
>
>
What was the command you ran?  It should be this:
ant -e -f ApproveRoyale.xml -Drelease.version=0.9.0 -Drc=1

Thanks,
Om


>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Olaf Krueger]

The ApproveRoyale script fails for me [1][2].
I've just installed ant on my Windows 10 machine and followed the
instructions.

I have to admit that I have no experience with ant...
Does it mean that the script is not "well-formed"?
Or does it mean that the error "The release version is not set" occurs?

Or do I something wrong?

Thanks,
Olaf


[1] Ant error message (translated from german)
BUILD FAILED
C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\ApproveRoyale.xml:83: 
Character "<" is not allowed for value of attribute "message" which is
linked with element type "fail"

[1] Row 83:
"
unless="release.version"/>



--
Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Olaf Krueger]

I hopefully did all the things as you've described it.
But unfortunately, it fails for me.
Hope this helps [1].

Thanks,
Olaf

[1]
$ mvn clean install -s settings-template.xml

[INFO] Scanning for projects...
Downloading from apache-staging:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositor 


ies/orgapacheroyale-1009/org/apache/royale/examples/examples-royale/0.9.0/exampl

 
es-royale-0.9.0.pom
Downloading from central:
https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/royale  

   
/examples/examples-royale/0.9.0/examples-royale-0.9.0.pom
[ERROR] [ERROR] Some problems were encountered while processing the POMs:
[FATAL] Non-resolvable parent POM for
org.apache.royale.examples:HelloWorld:0.9.  

   
0: Could not find artifact
org.apache.royale.examples:examples-royale:pom:0.9.0

  
in apache-staging
(https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacher  

   
oyale-1009/) and 'parent.relativePath' points at wrong local POM @ line 23,
colu
 
mn 11
 @
[ERROR] The build could not read 1 project -> [Help 1]
[ERROR]
[ERROR]   The project org.apache.royale.examples:HelloWorld:0.9.0
(C:\local\apac  
   
he-royale\sdks\apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin\royale-asjs\examples\royale\HelloW

 
orld\pom.xml) has 1 error
[ERROR] Non-resolvable parent POM for
org.apache.royale.examples:HelloWorld:  

   
0.9.0: Could not find artifact
org.apache.royale.examples:examples-royale:pom:0.   

  
9.0 in apache-staging
(https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapa  

   
cheroyale-1009/) and 'parent.relativePath' points at wrong local POM @ line
23, 
 
column 11 -> [Help 2]
[ERROR]
[ERROR] To see the full stack trace of the errors, re-run Maven with the -e
swit
 
ch.
[ERROR] Re-run Maven using the -X switch to enable full debug logging.
[ERROR]
[ERROR] For more information about the errors and possible solutions, please
rea 

d the following articles:
[ERROR] [Help 1]
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/ProjectBuildin 


gException
[ERROR] [Help 2]
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/UnresolvableMo 


delException




--
Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Alex Harui]

I made some changes to the develop branch and tests seem to be passing on
Windows in the Maven CI

-Alex

On 1/9/18, 8:37 AM, "Alex Harui"  wrote:

>FWIW, the tests passed for me on Windows on the first try, but the log
>shows I got lucky and the js.swc was written out after the second test
>started but must have just been in time for the compiler to see it.
>
>I will spend some time today to put in a better solution in the develop
>branch before turning tests on in the Maven CI.
>
>But whether Om changes his vote or not, if you vote +1 and I vote +1 and
>we get one more person to vote +1 we will have enough votes.  IMO, the
>source package is "not illegal" and "better than the last release" mainly
>because there is no last release.
>
>My 2 cents,
>-Alex
>
>On 1/9/18, 3:28 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:
>
>>On pipeline tests are skipped. If Om will try again without clean and
>>have
>>same result as me - I think we are good here.
>>
>>Thanks, Piotr
>>
>>2018-01-09 10:35 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :
>>
>>> Alex,
>>>
>>> Yes they passed without the clean. :)
>>>
>>> Thanks, Piotr
>>>
>>> 2018-01-09 9:43 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
>>>
 I just found out that the royals-compiler build on builds.a.o was not
 running tests.

 I'm running the approval script on Windows right now.  I'll probably
go to
 bed and check it in the morning.  It passed on Mac for me.

 If you run Maven without a clean a second time on the royale-compiler
 folder do the tests pass?

 -Alex

 On 1/9/18, 12:32 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" 
wrote:

 >I dont remember at all when I run tests last time. Im always using
 >builds.a.o for the tests. As you said if they pass on builds.a.o we
may
 be
 >good. Letès check on pipeline
 >
 >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%
 3A%2F%2Fbuilds.ap
 >ache.org%2Fjob%2FRoyale%2520Pipeline%2Fjob%2Frelease%25252F
 0.9.0%2F=0
 >2%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C405f516730bd43493ad408d5573b9
 87e%7Cfa7b1b5a7
 >b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636510835837943808=
 iWcLbIQRQu%2Bm%
 >2FNyqNz6jMoQR5%2FuRrnklHLsGRXQp7Q8%3D=0
 >
 >Thanks, Piotr
 >
 >2018-01-09 9:22 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
 >
 >> Last time you ran these tests from the repo or a nightly did they
pass?
 >>
 >> -Alex
 >>
 >> On 1/9/18, 12:18 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" 
 wrote:
 >>
 >> >Alex,
 >> >
 >> >I just run the tests and have same issue as Om. It is something
with
 an
 >> >order, cause tests first complaining about missing js.swc, later
that
 >>swc
 >> >is being written in the folder. [1]
 >> >
 >> >[1]
 >> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
 >> https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.apa
 >> >che.org%2FwLFl=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
 >> 7C736cd31637724aee40e808d
 >> >557399276%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
 >> 7C636510827137224098&
 >> 
>sdata=tXmCRkO%2FdcEWd%2FQiibHIhOHTfKFXBMMaNnMy%2F8kcUsw%3D=0
 >> >
 >> >Piotr
 >> >
 >> >
 >> >
 >> >2018-01-09 8:37 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
 >> >
 >> >>
 >> >>
 >> >> On 1/8/18, 11:23 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki"

 >> wrote:
 >> >>
 >> >> >Alex,
 >> >> >
 >> >> >Agree with you for the tests with Maven Artifacts, but
definitely
 >>I'm
 >> >>with
 >> >> >Om in case of failing tests. Unless there is some lot's of
fixes
 >>there.
 >> >>
 >> >> A failing test may not be a major problem if it is only failing
for
 a
 >> >> minority of people and there is some workaround.  It is
important to
 >> >> understand how many people are affected by any particular
problem.
 I
 >> >> believe tests are passing on builds.a.o.  They just passed for
me on
 >>OS
 >> >>X.
 >> >>  I will try myself on Windows tonight or tomorrow.  Did those
tests
 >>pass
 >> >> for you?
 >> >>
 >> >> -Alex
 >> >>
 >> >>
 >> >
 >> >
 >> >--
 >> >
 >> >Piotr Zarzycki
 >> >
 >> >Patreon:
 >> >*https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
 >> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
 >> >eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
 >> 7C736cd31637724a
 >> >ee40e808d557399276%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
 >> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365108271
 >> >37224098=u%2BCwGcimIMkPro%2BJWlK2Fs6TYyO2BpqhqDgsd18lmrE
 >> %3D
 >> >=0
 >> >> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
 >> >eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
 >> 7C736cd31637724a
 >> >ee40e808d557399276%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Alex Harui]

The whole point of the "release philosophy" thread is that we are trying
to re-program everyone's mentality towards shipping instead of not
shipping.  I agree we need to make the scripts work for other player
versions, but again, that can be done in the next release.

If you find a problem, don't just drop a -1 on the vote thread.  Discuss
it first to assess the impact of the problem, then decide how you want to
vote.  We want to release incrementally better releases more often than we
did in Flex and we can't do that if we keep dragging out the release.  If
we want to do a release every month, or even a sooner to help some
customer, if we have to run another RC 48 hours into the vote, we end up
almost doubling the time required to get the release out and seriously cut
into the window for doing other things between releases.

Thanks,
-Alex

On 1/9/18, 8:45 AM, "Peter Ent"  wrote:

>Yes, I can get 11.1, but 27.0 is in the apache-royale-0.9.0 IDE-compatable
>directory that got built with the installer script. It must have
>downloaded the latest playerglobal.swc at that time. Seems natural to use
>that rather than 11.1.
>
>‹peter
>
>
>On 1/9/18, 11:30 AM, "yishayw"  wrote:
>
>>Peter, if you look in royale-asjs README isn't the following set of
>>instructions consistent with your results?
>>
>>
>>> ## Additional Prerequisites For SWF Output
>>> 
>>> ### *playerglobal.swc*
>>> 
>>> The Adobe Flash Player *playerglobal.swc* (version 11.1) can be
>>>downloaded
>>> from:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload
>>>.
>>>macromedia.com%2Fget%2Fflashplayer%2Fupdaters%2F11%2Fplayerglobal11_1.sw
>>>c
>>>=02%7C01%7Cpent%40adobe.com%7C8c779caf932a47cf777308d5577e5686%7Cfa
>>>7
>>>b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636511122512019296=odPGYyW
>>>h
>>>21CRDzFmTOD4jGoxH%2F4vMMvEsN1nM%2FUgrPc%3D=0
>>> 
>>> First, create the following directory structure:
>>> 
>>> *[root directory]/player/11.1/*
>>> 
>>> Next, rename the downloaded SWC to '*playerglobal.swc*' and place it in
>>> the above directory.
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Sent from: 
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-ro
>>y
>>ale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2F=02%7C01%7Cpent%40adobe.com%7C
>>8
>>c779caf932a47cf777308d5577e5686%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C
>>0
>>%7C636511122512019296=R9GcRNvku0eA8SocejL%2FOyuUrrfU8pvMRe2KSzcWoC4
>>%
>>3D=0
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Peter Ent]

Yes, I can get 11.1, but 27.0 is in the apache-royale-0.9.0 IDE-compatable
directory that got built with the installer script. It must have
downloaded the latest playerglobal.swc at that time. Seems natural to use
that rather than 11.1.

‹peter


On 1/9/18, 11:30 AM, "yishayw"  wrote:

>Peter, if you look in royale-asjs README isn't the following set of
>instructions consistent with your results?
>
>
>> ## Additional Prerequisites For SWF Output
>> 
>> ### *playerglobal.swc*
>> 
>> The Adobe Flash Player *playerglobal.swc* (version 11.1) can be
>>downloaded
>> from:
>> 
>> 
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.
>>macromedia.com%2Fget%2Fflashplayer%2Fupdaters%2F11%2Fplayerglobal11_1.swc
>>=02%7C01%7Cpent%40adobe.com%7C8c779caf932a47cf777308d5577e5686%7Cfa7
>>b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636511122512019296=odPGYyWh
>>21CRDzFmTOD4jGoxH%2F4vMMvEsN1nM%2FUgrPc%3D=0
>> 
>> First, create the following directory structure:
>> 
>> *[root directory]/player/11.1/*
>> 
>> Next, rename the downloaded SWC to '*playerglobal.swc*' and place it in
>> the above directory.
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>--
>Sent from: 
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-roy
>ale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2F=02%7C01%7Cpent%40adobe.com%7C8
>c779caf932a47cf777308d5577e5686%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0
>%7C636511122512019296=R9GcRNvku0eA8SocejL%2FOyuUrrfU8pvMRe2KSzcWoC4%
>3D=0

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[yishayw]

Peter, if you look in royale-asjs README isn't the following set of
instructions consistent with your results?


> ## Additional Prerequisites For SWF Output
> 
> ### *playerglobal.swc*
> 
> The Adobe Flash Player *playerglobal.swc* (version 11.1) can be downloaded
> from:
> 
> http://download.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/updaters/11/playerglobal11_1.swc
> 
> First, create the following directory structure:
> 
> *[root directory]/player/11.1/*
> 
> Next, rename the downloaded SWC to '*playerglobal.swc*' and place it in
> the above directory.


 




--
Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Piotr Zarzycki]

On pipeline tests are skipped. If Om will try again without clean and have
same result as me - I think we are good here.

Thanks, Piotr

2018-01-09 10:35 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :

> Alex,
>
> Yes they passed without the clean. :)
>
> Thanks, Piotr
>
> 2018-01-09 9:43 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
>
>> I just found out that the royals-compiler build on builds.a.o was not
>> running tests.
>>
>> I'm running the approval script on Windows right now.  I'll probably go to
>> bed and check it in the morning.  It passed on Mac for me.
>>
>> If you run Maven without a clean a second time on the royale-compiler
>> folder do the tests pass?
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 1/9/18, 12:32 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:
>>
>> >I dont remember at all when I run tests last time. Im always using
>> >builds.a.o for the tests. As you said if they pass on builds.a.o we may
>> be
>> >good. Letès check on pipeline
>> >
>> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%
>> 3A%2F%2Fbuilds.ap
>> >ache.org%2Fjob%2FRoyale%2520Pipeline%2Fjob%2Frelease%25252F
>> 0.9.0%2F=0
>> >2%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C405f516730bd43493ad408d5573b9
>> 87e%7Cfa7b1b5a7
>> >b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636510835837943808=
>> iWcLbIQRQu%2Bm%
>> >2FNyqNz6jMoQR5%2FuRrnklHLsGRXQp7Q8%3D=0
>> >
>> >Thanks, Piotr
>> >
>> >2018-01-09 9:22 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
>> >
>> >> Last time you ran these tests from the repo or a nightly did they pass?
>> >>
>> >> -Alex
>> >>
>> >> On 1/9/18, 12:18 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Alex,
>> >> >
>> >> >I just run the tests and have same issue as Om. It is something with
>> an
>> >> >order, cause tests first complaining about missing js.swc, later that
>> >>swc
>> >> >is being written in the folder. [1]
>> >> >
>> >> >[1]
>> >> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> >> https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.apa
>> >> >che.org%2FwLFl=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
>> >> 7C736cd31637724aee40e808d
>> >> >557399276%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
>> >> 7C636510827137224098&
>> >> >sdata=tXmCRkO%2FdcEWd%2FQiibHIhOHTfKFXBMMaNnMy%2F8kcUsw%3D=0
>> >> >
>> >> >Piotr
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >2018-01-09 8:37 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 1/8/18, 11:23 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki" 
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Alex,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Agree with you for the tests with Maven Artifacts, but definitely
>> >>I'm
>> >> >>with
>> >> >> >Om in case of failing tests. Unless there is some lot's of fixes
>> >>there.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A failing test may not be a major problem if it is only failing for
>> a
>> >> >> minority of people and there is some workaround.  It is important to
>> >> >> understand how many people are affected by any particular problem.
>> I
>> >> >> believe tests are passing on builds.a.o.  They just passed for me on
>> >>OS
>> >> >>X.
>> >> >>  I will try myself on Windows tonight or tomorrow.  Did those tests
>> >>pass
>> >> >> for you?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -Alex
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >--
>> >> >
>> >> >Piotr Zarzycki
>> >> >
>> >> >Patreon:
>> >> >*https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> >> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
>> >> >eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
>> >> 7C736cd31637724a
>> >> >ee40e808d557399276%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
>> >> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365108271
>> >> >37224098=u%2BCwGcimIMkPro%2BJWlK2Fs6TYyO2BpqhqDgsd18lmrE
>> >> %3D
>> >> >=0
>> >> >> >> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
>> >> >eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
>> >> 7C736cd31637724a
>> >> >ee40e808d557399276%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
>> >> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365108271
>> >> >37224098=u%2BCwGcimIMkPro%2BJWlK2Fs6TYyO2BpqhqDgsd18lmrE
>> >> %3D
>> >> >=0>*
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >
>> >Piotr Zarzycki
>> >
>> >Patreon:
>> >*https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%
>> 3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
>> >eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7
>> C405f516730bd43
>> >493ad408d5573b987e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%
>> 7C0%7C6365108358
>> >37943808=30yiv%2Fx%2B28u3sWUeKr%2FPscSqGdn2YoXMs1404Z
>> s4kfo%3D
>> >ed=0
>> >> 3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
>> >eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7
>> C405f516730bd43
>> >493ad408d5573b987e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%
>> 7C0%7C6365108358
>> >37943808=30yiv%2Fx%2B28u3sWUeKr%2FPscSqGdn2YoXMs1404Z
>> s4kfo%3D
>> >ed=0>*
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> *
>



-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Alex,

Yes they passed without the clean. :)

Thanks, Piotr

2018-01-09 9:43 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :

> I just found out that the royals-compiler build on builds.a.o was not
> running tests.
>
> I'm running the approval script on Windows right now.  I'll probably go to
> bed and check it in the morning.  It passed on Mac for me.
>
> If you run Maven without a clean a second time on the royale-compiler
> folder do the tests pass?
>
> -Alex
>
> On 1/9/18, 12:32 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:
>
> >I dont remember at all when I run tests last time. Im always using
> >builds.a.o for the tests. As you said if they pass on builds.a.o we may be
> >good. Letès check on pipeline
> >
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fbuilds.ap
> >ache.org%2Fjob%2FRoyale%2520Pipeline%2Fjob%2Frelease%
> 25252F0.9.0%2F=0
> >2%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C405f516730bd43493ad408d5573b
> 987e%7Cfa7b1b5a7
> >b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636510835837943808&
> sdata=iWcLbIQRQu%2Bm%
> >2FNyqNz6jMoQR5%2FuRrnklHLsGRXQp7Q8%3D=0
> >
> >Thanks, Piotr
> >
> >2018-01-09 9:22 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
> >
> >> Last time you ran these tests from the repo or a nightly did they pass?
> >>
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >> On 1/9/18, 12:18 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Alex,
> >> >
> >> >I just run the tests and have same issue as Om. It is something with an
> >> >order, cause tests first complaining about missing js.swc, later that
> >>swc
> >> >is being written in the folder. [1]
> >> >
> >> >[1]
> >> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >> https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.apa
> >> >che.org%2FwLFl=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> >> 7C736cd31637724aee40e808d
> >> >557399276%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> >> 7C636510827137224098&
> >> >sdata=tXmCRkO%2FdcEWd%2FQiibHIhOHTfKFXBMMaNnMy%2F8kcUsw%3D=0
> >> >
> >> >Piotr
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >2018-01-09 8:37 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On 1/8/18, 11:23 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki" 
> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Alex,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Agree with you for the tests with Maven Artifacts, but definitely
> >>I'm
> >> >>with
> >> >> >Om in case of failing tests. Unless there is some lot's of fixes
> >>there.
> >> >>
> >> >> A failing test may not be a major problem if it is only failing for a
> >> >> minority of people and there is some workaround.  It is important to
> >> >> understand how many people are affected by any particular problem.  I
> >> >> believe tests are passing on builds.a.o.  They just passed for me on
> >>OS
> >> >>X.
> >> >>  I will try myself on Windows tonight or tomorrow.  Did those tests
> >>pass
> >> >> for you?
> >> >>
> >> >> -Alex
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >
> >> >Piotr Zarzycki
> >> >
> >> >Patreon:
> >> >*https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
> >> >eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> >> 7C736cd31637724a
> >> >ee40e808d557399276%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> >> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365108271
> >> >37224098=u%2BCwGcimIMkPro%2BJWlK2Fs6TYyO2BpqhqDgsd18lmrE
> >> %3D
> >> >=0
> >> > >> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
> >> >eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> >> 7C736cd31637724a
> >> >ee40e808d557399276%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> >> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365108271
> >> >37224098=u%2BCwGcimIMkPro%2BJWlK2Fs6TYyO2BpqhqDgsd18lmrE
> >> %3D
> >> >=0>*
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> >Patreon:
> >*https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
> >eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7C405f516730bd43
> >493ad408d5573b987e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365108358
> >37943808=30yiv%2Fx%2B28u3sWUeKr%2FPscSqGdn2YoXMs1404Zs4kfo%3D&
> reserv
> >ed=0
> > https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
> >eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7C405f516730bd43
> >493ad408d5573b987e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365108358
> >37943808=30yiv%2Fx%2B28u3sWUeKr%2FPscSqGdn2YoXMs1404Zs4kfo%3D&
> reserv
> >ed=0>*
>
>


-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Alex Harui]

I just found out that the royals-compiler build on builds.a.o was not
running tests.

I'm running the approval script on Windows right now.  I'll probably go to
bed and check it in the morning.  It passed on Mac for me.

If you run Maven without a clean a second time on the royale-compiler
folder do the tests pass?

-Alex

On 1/9/18, 12:32 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:

>I dont remember at all when I run tests last time. Im always using
>builds.a.o for the tests. As you said if they pass on builds.a.o we may be
>good. Letès check on pipeline
>
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbuilds.ap
>ache.org%2Fjob%2FRoyale%2520Pipeline%2Fjob%2Frelease%25252F0.9.0%2F=0
>2%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C405f516730bd43493ad408d5573b987e%7Cfa7b1b5a7
>b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636510835837943808=iWcLbIQRQu%2Bm%
>2FNyqNz6jMoQR5%2FuRrnklHLsGRXQp7Q8%3D=0
>
>Thanks, Piotr
>
>2018-01-09 9:22 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
>
>> Last time you ran these tests from the repo or a nightly did they pass?
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 1/9/18, 12:18 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:
>>
>> >Alex,
>> >
>> >I just run the tests and have same issue as Om. It is something with an
>> >order, cause tests first complaining about missing js.swc, later that
>>swc
>> >is being written in the folder. [1]
>> >
>> >[1]
>> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.apa
>> >che.org%2FwLFl=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
>> 7C736cd31637724aee40e808d
>> >557399276%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
>> 7C636510827137224098&
>> >sdata=tXmCRkO%2FdcEWd%2FQiibHIhOHTfKFXBMMaNnMy%2F8kcUsw%3D=0
>> >
>> >Piotr
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >2018-01-09 8:37 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 1/8/18, 11:23 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki" 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Alex,
>> >> >
>> >> >Agree with you for the tests with Maven Artifacts, but definitely
>>I'm
>> >>with
>> >> >Om in case of failing tests. Unless there is some lot's of fixes
>>there.
>> >>
>> >> A failing test may not be a major problem if it is only failing for a
>> >> minority of people and there is some workaround.  It is important to
>> >> understand how many people are affected by any particular problem.  I
>> >> believe tests are passing on builds.a.o.  They just passed for me on
>>OS
>> >>X.
>> >>  I will try myself on Windows tonight or tomorrow.  Did those tests
>>pass
>> >> for you?
>> >>
>> >> -Alex
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >
>> >Piotr Zarzycki
>> >
>> >Patreon:
>> >*https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
>> >eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
>> 7C736cd31637724a
>> >ee40e808d557399276%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
>> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365108271
>> >37224098=u%2BCwGcimIMkPro%2BJWlK2Fs6TYyO2BpqhqDgsd18lmrE
>> %3D
>> >=0
>> >> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
>> >eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
>> 7C736cd31637724a
>> >ee40e808d557399276%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
>> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365108271
>> >37224098=u%2BCwGcimIMkPro%2BJWlK2Fs6TYyO2BpqhqDgsd18lmrE
>> %3D
>> >=0>*
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>
>Piotr Zarzycki
>
>Patreon: 
>*https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
>eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C405f516730bd43
>493ad408d5573b987e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365108358
>37943808=30yiv%2Fx%2B28u3sWUeKr%2FPscSqGdn2YoXMs1404Zs4kfo%3D
>ed=0
>eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C405f516730bd43
>493ad408d5573b987e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365108358
>37943808=30yiv%2Fx%2B28u3sWUeKr%2FPscSqGdn2YoXMs1404Zs4kfo%3D
>ed=0>*

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Piotr Zarzycki]

I dont remember at all when I run tests last time. Im always using
builds.a.o for the tests. As you said if they pass on builds.a.o we may be
good. Letès check on pipeline

https://builds.apache.org/job/Royale%20Pipeline/job/release%252F0.9.0/

Thanks, Piotr

2018-01-09 9:22 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :

> Last time you ran these tests from the repo or a nightly did they pass?
>
> -Alex
>
> On 1/9/18, 12:18 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:
>
> >Alex,
> >
> >I just run the tests and have same issue as Om. It is something with an
> >order, cause tests first complaining about missing js.swc, later that swc
> >is being written in the folder. [1]
> >
> >[1]
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.apa
> >che.org%2FwLFl=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7C736cd31637724aee40e808d
> >557399276%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> 7C636510827137224098&
> >sdata=tXmCRkO%2FdcEWd%2FQiibHIhOHTfKFXBMMaNnMy%2F8kcUsw%3D=0
> >
> >Piotr
> >
> >
> >
> >2018-01-09 8:37 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/8/18, 11:23 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki" 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Alex,
> >> >
> >> >Agree with you for the tests with Maven Artifacts, but definitely I'm
> >>with
> >> >Om in case of failing tests. Unless there is some lot's of fixes there.
> >>
> >> A failing test may not be a major problem if it is only failing for a
> >> minority of people and there is some workaround.  It is important to
> >> understand how many people are affected by any particular problem.  I
> >> believe tests are passing on builds.a.o.  They just passed for me on OS
> >>X.
> >>  I will try myself on Windows tonight or tomorrow.  Did those tests pass
> >> for you?
> >>
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> >Patreon:
> >*https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
> >eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7C736cd31637724a
> >ee40e808d557399276%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365108271
> >37224098=u%2BCwGcimIMkPro%2BJWlK2Fs6TYyO2BpqhqDgsd18lmrE
> %3D
> >=0
> > https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
> >eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7C736cd31637724a
> >ee40e808d557399276%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365108271
> >37224098=u%2BCwGcimIMkPro%2BJWlK2Fs6TYyO2BpqhqDgsd18lmrE
> %3D
> >=0>*
>
>


-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Alex Harui]

Last time you ran these tests from the repo or a nightly did they pass?

-Alex

On 1/9/18, 12:18 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:

>Alex,
>
>I just run the tests and have same issue as Om. It is something with an
>order, cause tests first complaining about missing js.swc, later that swc
>is being written in the folder. [1]
>
>[1] 
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.apa
>che.org%2FwLFl=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C736cd31637724aee40e808d
>557399276%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636510827137224098&
>sdata=tXmCRkO%2FdcEWd%2FQiibHIhOHTfKFXBMMaNnMy%2F8kcUsw%3D=0
>
>Piotr
>
>
>
>2018-01-09 8:37 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
>
>>
>>
>> On 1/8/18, 11:23 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:
>>
>> >Alex,
>> >
>> >Agree with you for the tests with Maven Artifacts, but definitely I'm
>>with
>> >Om in case of failing tests. Unless there is some lot's of fixes there.
>>
>> A failing test may not be a major problem if it is only failing for a
>> minority of people and there is some workaround.  It is important to
>> understand how many people are affected by any particular problem.  I
>> believe tests are passing on builds.a.o.  They just passed for me on OS
>>X.
>>  I will try myself on Windows tonight or tomorrow.  Did those tests pass
>> for you?
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>
>Piotr Zarzycki
>
>Patreon: 
>*https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
>eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C736cd31637724a
>ee40e808d557399276%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365108271
>37224098=u%2BCwGcimIMkPro%2BJWlK2Fs6TYyO2BpqhqDgsd18lmrE%3D
>=0
>eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C736cd31637724a
>ee40e808d557399276%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365108271
>37224098=u%2BCwGcimIMkPro%2BJWlK2Fs6TYyO2BpqhqDgsd18lmrE%3D
>=0>*

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Alex,

I just run the tests and have same issue as Om. It is something with an
order, cause tests first complaining about missing js.swc, later that swc
is being written in the folder. [1]

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

Piotr



2018-01-09 8:37 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :

>
>
> On 1/8/18, 11:23 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:
>
> >Alex,
> >
> >Agree with you for the tests with Maven Artifacts, but definitely I'm with
> >Om in case of failing tests. Unless there is some lot's of fixes there.
>
> A failing test may not be a major problem if it is only failing for a
> minority of people and there is some workaround.  It is important to
> understand how many people are affected by any particular problem.  I
> believe tests are passing on builds.a.o.  They just passed for me on OS X.
>  I will try myself on Windows tonight or tomorrow.  Did those tests pass
> for you?
>
> -Alex
>
>


-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Alex Harui]

On 1/8/18, 11:23 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:

>Alex,
>
>Agree with you for the tests with Maven Artifacts, but definitely I'm with
>Om in case of failing tests. Unless there is some lot's of fixes there.

A failing test may not be a major problem if it is only failing for a
minority of people and there is some workaround.  It is important to
understand how many people are affected by any particular problem.  I
believe tests are passing on builds.a.o.  They just passed for me on OS X.
 I will try myself on Windows tonight or tomorrow.  Did those tests pass
for you?

-Alex

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Alex,

Agree with you for the tests with Maven Artifacts, but definitely I'm with
Om in case of failing tests. Unless there is some lot's of fixes there.

I hope Olaf won't have any problems. :)

Thanks, Piotr

2018-01-09 8:03 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :

> That's fine for Olaf to try, but again, we don't want to nitpick the
> release process and slow things up.  If it worked for you, that should be
> good enough for this first release, and if Olaf has trouble, we fix it for
> the next release.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> On 1/8/18, 10:36 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:
>
> >Olaf,
> >
> >I'm glad that you haven't use it - This is the test which I would like to
> >see. How does that work on the clean machine. Of course you will need to
> >download and install Maven first. :)
> >As for the name of template it doesn't matter, you can specify it in your
> >command if you name it differently: "mvn clean install -s
> >settings-template.xml"
> >
> >Thanks, Piotr
> >
> >
> >2018-01-09 7:14 GMT+01:00 Olaf Krueger :
> >
> >> I'll try to do test it tonight but I am not sure if I had already use
> >>maven
> >> with my current machine... I will check it out.
> >>
> >> >3) Place following file template to the folder with your pom.xml [1]
> >>
> >> I guess this should be namend as settings-template.xml?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Olaf
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sent from:
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fapache-ro
> >>yale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%
> 40adobe.com
> >>%7C1573ec6823fb43883b6108d5572b6638%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C
> >>0%7C0%7C636510766287922994=O0m0Xc0zsv%
> 2FrCsTUkgX6xGyO6rEy0cof7UYZ0M
> >>AyTd8%3D=0
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> >Patreon:
> >*https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
> >eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7C1573ec6823fb43
> >883b6108d5572b6638%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365107662
> >87922994=iu6j0QNQ7yvgHmodOQrD4zZM7%2BNhHP59gWuKL5wD63A%3D&
> reserved=0
> > https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
> >eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7C1573ec6823fb43
> >883b6108d5572b6638%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365107662
> >87922994=iu6j0QNQ7yvgHmodOQrD4zZM7%2BNhHP59gWuKL5wD63A%3D&
> reserved=0
> >>*
>
>


-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Dave Fisher]

Hi Justin,

I was doing my research.

See https://github.com/google/material-design-lite/blob/mdl-1.x/README.md

Google has relicensed as AL 2. See the bottom.

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 8, 2018, at 11:10 PM, Justin Mclean  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> Those files come from here [1]
>> 
>> [1] https://getmdl.io/templates/index.html
> 
> Thanks, do you know how they are licensed?
> 
> I can see there’s an open issue reguarding licensing of these files. [1] The 
> original check in doesn’t help much [2] other than the icons seem to be under 
> an CCSA 4.0 international license. Have we altered the icons in any way?
> 
> Doing a reverse google image search on the road image [5] (which looks like a 
> professional stock photo to me) turns up a number if hits, but I would guess 
> it may of come from here [4] as that is one of the hits that predates the 
> original checkin. There it’s stated that the image is CC0 but it doesn’t give 
> the author and it’s unknown who uploaded it. (The free photos account seems 
> to be a catch all). So best case it seems it may be CC0 but it probably is of 
> unknown IP provenance. Note that it appears in several paid commercial 
> themes, I’ve not checked them all but the few I did see to come after that 
> checkin so they may of copied it from there. Can anyone find out anything 
> else about any of that (or others) images origins?
> 
> I’ve not investigated the other images.
> 
> To resolve we could:
> a) Found out where each image come form and what license it’s under.
> b) We may need to ask Alexander Surma (su...@surmair.de) who checked in the 
> images where they where obtained from and what license they were under. (And 
> if it was [4] ask pixabay where they got it from.)
> c) Ask for that issue [1] to be resolved (and give provenance for each image).
> d) Replace the images and icons with something of known IP provenance.
> 
> What do you think? To me d) seems the simplest and quickest option and would 
> require no changes to the existing LICENSE.
> 
> Thanks.
> Justin
> 
> 1. https://github.com/google/material-design-lite/issues/4857
> 2. 
> https://github.com/google/material-design-lite/commit/2cab1e730699b1a650c4f74300939f9d66b16128#diff-f8c098de9d518711322490fec27fcd27
> 3. 
> https://github.com/google/material-design-lite/blob/2cab1e730699b1a650c4f74300939f9d66b16128/templates/fonts/LICENSE.txt
> 4. https://pixabay.com/en/person-male-man-looking-sitting-60/
> 5. 
> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/blob/develop/examples/royale/MDLBlogExample/src/main/resources/images/road_big.jpg

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> Those files come from here [1]
> 
> [1] https://getmdl.io/templates/index.html

Thanks, do you know how they are licensed?

I can see there’s an open issue reguarding licensing of these files. [1] The 
original check in doesn’t help much [2] other than the icons seem to be under 
an CCSA 4.0 international license. Have we altered the icons in any way?

Doing a reverse google image search on the road image [5] (which looks like a 
professional stock photo to me) turns up a number if hits, but I would guess it 
may of come from here [4] as that is one of the hits that predates the original 
checkin. There it’s stated that the image is CC0 but it doesn’t give the author 
and it’s unknown who uploaded it. (The free photos account seems to be a catch 
all). So best case it seems it may be CC0 but it probably is of unknown IP 
provenance. Note that it appears in several paid commercial themes, I’ve not 
checked them all but the few I did see to come after that checkin so they may 
of copied it from there. Can anyone find out anything else about any of that 
(or others) images origins?

I’ve not investigated the other images.

To resolve we could:
a) Found out where each image come form and what license it’s under.
b) We may need to ask Alexander Surma (su...@surmair.de) who checked in the 
images where they where obtained from and what license they were under. (And if 
it was [4] ask pixabay where they got it from.)
c) Ask for that issue [1] to be resolved (and give provenance for each image).
d) Replace the images and icons with something of known IP provenance.

What do you think? To me d) seems the simplest and quickest option and would 
require no changes to the existing LICENSE.

Thanks.
Justin

1. https://github.com/google/material-design-lite/issues/4857
2. 
https://github.com/google/material-design-lite/commit/2cab1e730699b1a650c4f74300939f9d66b16128#diff-f8c098de9d518711322490fec27fcd27
3. 
https://github.com/google/material-design-lite/blob/2cab1e730699b1a650c4f74300939f9d66b16128/templates/fonts/LICENSE.txt
4. https://pixabay.com/en/person-male-man-looking-sitting-60/
5. 
https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/blob/develop/examples/royale/MDLBlogExample/src/main/resources/images/road_big.jpg

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Olaf,

I'm glad that you haven't use it - This is the test which I would like to
see. How does that work on the clean machine. Of course you will need to
download and install Maven first. :)
As for the name of template it doesn't matter, you can specify it in your
command if you name it differently: "mvn clean install -s
settings-template.xml"

Thanks, Piotr


2018-01-09 7:14 GMT+01:00 Olaf Krueger :

> I'll try to do test it tonight but I am not sure if I had already use maven
> with my current machine... I will check it out.
>
> >3) Place following file template to the folder with your pom.xml [1]
>
> I guess this should be namend as settings-template.xml?
>
> Thanks,
> Olaf
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
>



-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

As mentioned in the VOTE thread, I had unit tests failing while building
the compiler with Maven.  The full console log is available here [1]

Thanks,
Om

[1] https://gist.github.com/anonymous/146e95749626a54dd2a6a2937c9591c0

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 10:14 PM, Olaf Krueger  wrote:

> I'll try to do test it tonight but I am not sure if I had already use maven
> with my current machine... I will check it out.
>
> >3) Place following file template to the folder with your pom.xml [1]
>
> I guess this should be namend as settings-template.xml?
>
> Thanks,
> Olaf
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

Does any one know where these files come from and how they are licensed? [1]

I quick reverse image search shows several of them to be part of commercial web 
templates, but those templates could of got them from else where.

Thanks,
Justin


1, 
https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/tree/develop/examples/royale/MDLBlogExample/src/main/resources/images

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Piotr Zarzycki]

It would be really great if someone from PMCs who never touch Maven tried
test some application. That would be really helpful.

Thanks, Piotr

2018-01-08 23:00 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :

> Today I had time to test only Maven artifacts. Tomorrow hopefully will try
> ANT and building stuff. Just wanted to share with you guys instruction how
> to test Maven artifacts. My tests went well. I have build three
> applications 2 MDL and one with Basic components - Each run without the
> problem. :)
>
> Instruction:
>
> 1) Pickup some example or whatever application you have which have pom.xml
> - It can be something from our Examples
> 2) Remove -SNAPSHOT from pom. Place everywhere 0.9.0 version.
> 3) Place following file template to the folder with your pom.xml [1]
> 4) Type in console mvn clean install -s settings-template.xml
> 5) Run your application from location target/javascript/bin/js-debug
>
> All dependencies should be downloaded. If you will be able to run
> application one part of the testing is done. :)
>
> [1] https://paste.apache.org/phar
>
> Thanks, Piotr
>
>
> 2018-01-08 18:16 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
>
>>
>>
>> On 1/8/18, 12:52 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:
>>
>> >Placing discussion here.
>> >
>> >Understand, so the problem actually now is in Develop, but in 0.9.0
>> >doesn't
>> >exists, cause script simply invoke creation exact what we have in
>> >"develop"
>> >branch. Once we finish release, merge released branched to develop, we
>> can
>> >simply make correction manually for the future release.
>>
>> Maven "automatically" does lots of things (makes lots of assumptions).  It
>> assumes that when you create a release branch that it should automatically
>> update the develop branch to the next release version (you can set what
>> that version is, but it defaults to updating the z in x.y.z version
>> formats).  Then at that point, the release branch still has the older
>> snapshot versions.  Another Maven release step removes the "-SNAPSHOT"
>> from the versions and does a quick check to see that there are no
>> remaining -SNAPSHOT dependencies.  However, Maven doesn't seem to
>> understand string substitution variables so we have to fix those up in the
>> Ant script that is calling all of these Maven steps.  Then Maven creates
>> and stages the artifacts and then updates the release branch to the next
>> version as well in order to make the merge work cleanly.
>>
>> It might be that we can use the distribution profile when creating the
>> branches and then Maven should find and update the version in that pom.
>> Maybe I will try that in a future release.
>>
>> The key is with this Ant script, we can hopefully automatically do
>> whatever manual steps are required to make everything work so releases
>> don't require as much human intervention.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Alex
>> >
>> >
>> >2018-01-08 9:28 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :
>> >
>> >> Hi Alex,
>> >>
>> >> My concerns about that is actually been in thread "Royale Release
>> >>Process
>> >> Philosophy". Feel free to respond here. :)
>> >>
>> >> Thanks, Piotr
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2018-01-08 9:14 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
>> >>
>> >>> This is the discussion thread.
>> >>>
>> >>> The Maven artifacts are staged here:
>> >>>
>> >>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%
>> 3A%2F%2Freposit
>> >>>ory.apache.org%2Fcontent%2Frepositories%2Forgapacheroyale
>> -1009=02%7
>> >>>C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca178dcb9a51f45c6250008d556770f
>> f3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b
>> >>>34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636509991723063403
>> =7B5hROFXM6a%2B
>> >>>vwhhrdw8uselbRlRXvjhK%2BKomVjRlNY%3D=0
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> Alex Harui
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> Piotr Zarzycki
>> >>
>> >> Patreon:
>> >>*https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%
>> 3A%2F%2Fwww.pat
>> >>reon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
>> %7Ca178dcb9a51f
>> >>45c6250008d556770ff3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%
>> 7C0%7C0%7C6365099
>> >>91723063403=jTXIh3gSni4jErwmg4jYz7PsfVlA3S5z8%
>> 2Febivq8qKE%3D
>> >>ed=0
>> >>
>> >>> 3A%2F%2Fwww.pat
>> >>reon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
>> %7Ca178dcb9a51f
>> >>45c6250008d556770ff3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%
>> 7C0%7C0%7C6365099
>> >>91723063403=jTXIh3gSni4jErwmg4jYz7PsfVlA3S5z8%
>> 2Febivq8qKE%3D
>> >>ed=0>*
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >
>> >Piotr Zarzycki
>> >
>> >Patreon:
>> >*https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%
>> 3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
>> >eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7
>> Ca178dcb9a51f45
>> >c6250008d556770ff3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%
>> 7C0%7C6365099917
>> >23063403=jTXIh3gSni4jErwmg4jYz7PsfVlA3S5z8%
>> 2Febivq8qKE%3D=0
>> >> 3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
>> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Today I had time to test only Maven artifacts. Tomorrow hopefully will try
ANT and building stuff. Just wanted to share with you guys instruction how
to test Maven artifacts. My tests went well. I have build three
applications 2 MDL and one with Basic components - Each run without the
problem. :)

Instruction:

1) Pickup some example or whatever application you have which have pom.xml
- It can be something from our Examples
2) Remove -SNAPSHOT from pom. Place everywhere 0.9.0 version.
3) Place following file template to the folder with your pom.xml [1]
4) Type in console mvn clean install -s settings-template.xml
5) Run your application from location target/javascript/bin/js-debug

All dependencies should be downloaded. If you will be able to run
application one part of the testing is done. :)

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

Thanks, Piotr


2018-01-08 18:16 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :

>
>
> On 1/8/18, 12:52 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:
>
> >Placing discussion here.
> >
> >Understand, so the problem actually now is in Develop, but in 0.9.0
> >doesn't
> >exists, cause script simply invoke creation exact what we have in
> >"develop"
> >branch. Once we finish release, merge released branched to develop, we can
> >simply make correction manually for the future release.
>
> Maven "automatically" does lots of things (makes lots of assumptions).  It
> assumes that when you create a release branch that it should automatically
> update the develop branch to the next release version (you can set what
> that version is, but it defaults to updating the z in x.y.z version
> formats).  Then at that point, the release branch still has the older
> snapshot versions.  Another Maven release step removes the "-SNAPSHOT"
> from the versions and does a quick check to see that there are no
> remaining -SNAPSHOT dependencies.  However, Maven doesn't seem to
> understand string substitution variables so we have to fix those up in the
> Ant script that is calling all of these Maven steps.  Then Maven creates
> and stages the artifacts and then updates the release branch to the next
> version as well in order to make the merge work cleanly.
>
> It might be that we can use the distribution profile when creating the
> branches and then Maven should find and update the version in that pom.
> Maybe I will try that in a future release.
>
> The key is with this Ant script, we can hopefully automatically do
> whatever manual steps are required to make everything work so releases
> don't require as much human intervention.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
> >
> >
> >2018-01-08 9:28 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :
> >
> >> Hi Alex,
> >>
> >> My concerns about that is actually been in thread "Royale Release
> >>Process
> >> Philosophy". Feel free to respond here. :)
> >>
> >> Thanks, Piotr
> >>
> >>
> >> 2018-01-08 9:14 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
> >>
> >>> This is the discussion thread.
> >>>
> >>> The Maven artifacts are staged here:
> >>>
> >>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Freposit
> >>>ory.apache.org%2Fcontent%2Frepositories%2Forgapacheroyale-1009=
> 02%7
> >>>C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca178dcb9a51f45c6250008d55677
> 0ff3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b
> >>>34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636509991723063403&
> sdata=7B5hROFXM6a%2B
> >>>vwhhrdw8uselbRlRXvjhK%2BKomVjRlNY%3D=0
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Alex Harui
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Piotr Zarzycki
> >>
> >> Patreon:
> >>*https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pat
> >>reon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
> %7Ca178dcb9a51f
> >>45c6250008d556770ff3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365099
> >>91723063403=jTXIh3gSni4jErwmg4jYz7PsfVlA3S
> 5z8%2Febivq8qKE%3D
> >>ed=0
> >>
> >> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pat
> >>reon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
> %7Ca178dcb9a51f
> >>45c6250008d556770ff3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365099
> >>91723063403=jTXIh3gSni4jErwmg4jYz7PsfVlA3S
> 5z8%2Febivq8qKE%3D
> >>ed=0>*
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> >Patreon:
> >*https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
> >eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7Ca178dcb9a51f45
> >c6250008d556770ff3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365099917
> >23063403=jTXIh3gSni4jErwmg4jYz7PsfVlA3S
> 5z8%2Febivq8qKE%3D=0
> > https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
> >eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%
> 7Ca178dcb9a51f45
> >c6250008d556770ff3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365099917
> >23063403=jTXIh3gSni4jErwmg4jYz7PsfVlA3S
> 5z8%2Febivq8qKE%3D=0
> >>*
>
>


-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Alex Harui]

On 1/8/18, 12:52 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki"  wrote:

>Placing discussion here.
>
>Understand, so the problem actually now is in Develop, but in 0.9.0
>doesn't
>exists, cause script simply invoke creation exact what we have in
>"develop"
>branch. Once we finish release, merge released branched to develop, we can
>simply make correction manually for the future release.

Maven "automatically" does lots of things (makes lots of assumptions).  It
assumes that when you create a release branch that it should automatically
update the develop branch to the next release version (you can set what
that version is, but it defaults to updating the z in x.y.z version
formats).  Then at that point, the release branch still has the older
snapshot versions.  Another Maven release step removes the "-SNAPSHOT"
from the versions and does a quick check to see that there are no
remaining -SNAPSHOT dependencies.  However, Maven doesn't seem to
understand string substitution variables so we have to fix those up in the
Ant script that is calling all of these Maven steps.  Then Maven creates
and stages the artifacts and then updates the release branch to the next
version as well in order to make the merge work cleanly.

It might be that we can use the distribution profile when creating the
branches and then Maven should find and update the version in that pom.
Maybe I will try that in a future release.

The key is with this Ant script, we can hopefully automatically do
whatever manual steps are required to make everything work so releases
don't require as much human intervention.

Thanks,
-Alex
>
>
>2018-01-08 9:28 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki :
>
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> My concerns about that is actually been in thread "Royale Release
>>Process
>> Philosophy". Feel free to respond here. :)
>>
>> Thanks, Piotr
>>
>>
>> 2018-01-08 9:14 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
>>
>>> This is the discussion thread.
>>>
>>> The Maven artifacts are staged here:
>>> 
>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freposit
>>>ory.apache.org%2Fcontent%2Frepositories%2Forgapacheroyale-1009=02%7
>>>C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca178dcb9a51f45c6250008d556770ff3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b
>>>34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636509991723063403=7B5hROFXM6a%2B
>>>vwhhrdw8uselbRlRXvjhK%2BKomVjRlNY%3D=0
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alex Harui
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Piotr Zarzycki
>>
>> Patreon: 
>>*https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pat
>>reon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca178dcb9a51f
>>45c6250008d556770ff3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365099
>>91723063403=jTXIh3gSni4jErwmg4jYz7PsfVlA3S5z8%2Febivq8qKE%3D
>>ed=0
>> 
>>>reon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca178dcb9a51f
>>45c6250008d556770ff3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365099
>>91723063403=jTXIh3gSni4jErwmg4jYz7PsfVlA3S5z8%2Febivq8qKE%3D
>>ed=0>*
>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>
>Piotr Zarzycki
>
>Patreon: 
>*https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patr
>eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca178dcb9a51f45
>c6250008d556770ff3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365099917
>23063403=jTXIh3gSni4jErwmg4jYz7PsfVlA3S5z8%2Febivq8qKE%3D=0
>eon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca178dcb9a51f45
>c6250008d556770ff3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6365099917
>23063403=jTXIh3gSni4jErwmg4jYz7PsfVlA3S5z8%2Febivq8qKE%3D=0
>>*

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Hi Alex,

My concerns about that is actually been in thread "Royale Release Process
Philosophy". Feel free to respond here. :)

Thanks, Piotr


2018-01-08 9:14 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :

> This is the discussion thread.
>
> The Maven artifacts are staged here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheroyale-1009
>
>
> Thanks,
> Alex Harui
>
>


-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

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