Hi Seb,
Thanks for the reply, I have written 'OSMFSettings.enableStageVideo = false'
in the application "preintialize" event handler but i am still encountering
this issue. I also tried keeping 'backgroundAlpha = 0' in the main
application container but the problem still persists. I am using flex
hi,
ok, my workaround was about a bug which appeared with 4.11
i never encontered issue with 4.6 before.
but it may be related to same issue.
do you force wmode to direct in your html wrapper ?
Le 06/11/2013 11:20, krishna4960 a écrit :
Hi Seb,
Thanks for the reply, I have written 'OSMFSettings
I checked a number of files in yesterday and I'm pretty sure a handful
won't pass glint right now; I meant to do them all, but forgot some so I'm
doing them this morning. If you want to go ahead and run the tool just to
see if and how failures pop-up, go right ahead.
--peter
On 11/6/13 2:40 AM, "
I have spend the day running all JS files through JSHint and gjslint.
I fixed about 6 errors that emerged (vars not declared etc.) up, but I
also corrected all whitespace. It's a monster commit, if I get it
finished ;-)
Another issue: there is a rather large discrepancy between the class
structure
Nuts, you sent that just as I turned off my computer last night...
On 11/6/13 7:54 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>I have spend the day running all JS files through JSHint and gjslint.
>I fixed about 6 errors that emerged (vars not declared etc.) up, but I
>also corrected all whitespace. It's a mons
I haven't tried all of the example yet. Was going to do that once I
finished up a wiki page and cleaned up the remaining glint issues.
The discrepancy is known and it is something I have been working on
recently. I haven't attempted any @interface stuff yet, so I created some
base classes to mimic
Ok, let's do it this way:
You guys just keep committing (remember to pull before you push ;-))
and I'll fix any merge issues. Once I'm done (I think my tomorrow),
I'll put my changes in a new public branch, so we can test against the
examples to make sure I didn't break anything.
Also, interfaces
Ah, and one to remember: there is no need for @this annotations on
class members that are defined on the prototype. I've removed these
references when I encountered them.
EdB
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> Ok, let's do it this way:
>
> You guys just keep committing (rem
On 11/6/13 8:24 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>Ok, let's do it this way:
>
>You guys just keep committing (remember to pull before you push ;-))
>and I'll fix any merge issues. Once I'm done (I think my tomorrow),
>I'll put my changes in a new public branch, so we can test against the
>examples to
You can slash escape some characters as well..
Like \[Binding]
-Original Message-
From: Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 10:58 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: ActionScript coding conventions
Hi,
Also right towards the bottom ther
As per Nick's suggestion, I looked into Apache Cordova's efforts to publish
a similar app for their software. Here is an email discussion about this
[1] and more importantly, they have started a process with ASF's legal team
to have set up a process in place [2] It is still ongoing.
I have subsc
Every once in a while we get an "Invitation to connect on LinkedIn" email for
moderation. Should we be accepting or rejecting these? Does it make sense
have these mailing lists connected via LinkedIn?
-Alex
Someday, one of us will find time to put together a showcase. In the
meantime, you can submit your app via JIRA under the component "Showcase"
so we can track it.
Thanks,
-Alex
On 11/5/13 9:24 PM, "SHIVANG SANGHI" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I have developed an Tshirt Designer Application using Flex 4.6 .
Hi,
> Every once in a while we get an "Invitation to connect on LinkedIn" email for
> moderation.
Reject I say. They could be phishing spam or sent by someone just sending out
blanket requests (connect to all my "friends").
> Does it make sense have these mailing lists connected via LinkedIn?
I agree. Reject.
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Every once in a while we get an "Invitation to connect on LinkedIn" email
>> for moderation.
> Reject I say. They could be phishing spam or sent by someone just sending out
> blanket requests (connect to all my "fr
Hi,
Anyone else? Do people think they are in a good enough start to start a VOTE?
And would Lazy 2/3 majority of PMC members be the voting system to use?
Thanks,
Justin
A couple of things:
1. Do we really want to allow +0.5 or -0.5 etc.? This has a potential to
lead to confusion (does two 0.5 votes make a +1 vote, does two -0.5
constitute a veto, etc) We should probably eliminate this.
2. We need to specify that the approval type (consensus vs. lazy vs. etc.)
I don't understand this part:
---
Code changes
A change made to a codebase of the project and committed by a committer. This
includes source code, documentation, website content, etc
Lazy Consensus approval of committers.
---
Are you talking about when there is a controversy over a code change
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Gordon Smith wrote:
> I don't understand this part:
>
> ---
> Code changes
>
> A change made to a codebase of the project and committed by a committer.
> This includes source code, documentation, website content, etc
>
> Lazy Consensus approval of committers.
> ---
OK, I'm all checked in. I'll post an overlay shortly. Lint away!
Thanks,
-Alex
On 11/6/13 8:24 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>Ok, let's do it this way:
>
>You guys just keep committing (remember to pull before you push ;-))
>and I'll fix any merge issues. Once I'm done (I think my tomorrow),
>I'
I haven't had a chance to read it. I will in about 4 hours.
I'd say the Voting.html only requires majority vote, but I'd rather
iterate on the proposal to see if we can get consensus.
On 11/6/13 4:11 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Anyone else? Do people think they are in a good enough star
Hi,
> 1. Do we really want to allow +0.5 or -0.5 etc.?
Yes as it allowed and people do vote that way.
> does two 0.5 votes make a +1 vote, does two -0.5 constitute a veto, etc
Answer is no to both. only -1 are a vert and only full +1 are counted when
releasing:
"Only a -1 is considered a veto a
If it's going to take a Lazy 2/3 Majority to change the rules, then I think it
should take a Lazy 2/3 Majority to approve them in the first place.
- Gordon
-Original Message-
From: Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 7:29 PM
To: dev@flex.apac
I found time for a quick read. Thanks for taking the time to put together
this document.
Is there a reason why you are proposing Lazy forms of voting for most
actions? I kind of like seeing how many folks vote +1 and who they are.
Doesn't Lazy essentially only solicit vetos?
Did you/Can you che
Hi,
> Is there a reason why you are proposing Lazy forms of voting for most
> actions?
Because that's generally the Apache default for voting in committers, PMC
members etc etc. Although it does vary somewhat with projects with
guidelines/bylaws. Being able to veto the voting in of a committer o
On 11/6/13 6:01 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Is there a reason why you are proposing Lazy forms of voting for most
>> actions?
>Because that's generally the Apache default for voting in committers, PMC
>members etc etc. Although it does vary somewhat with projects with
>guidelines/bylaw
Hi,
> I thought most votes to approve committers were consensus, not lazy consensus.
It varies but more lazy than not I believe. But no issue either way as far as
I'm concerned. We've not have a vote that's had less than 3 +1 so it not been
an issue, the last couple of votes I called were "Lazy"
On 11/6/13 9:32 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> I thought most votes to approve committers were consensus, not lazy
>>consensus.
>It varies but more lazy than not I believe. But no issue either way as
>far as I'm concerned. We've not have a vote that's had less than 3 +1 so
>it not been an
Hi,
> I'd rather we ask folks to vote one way or another when approving committers
> and pmc
> membership.
I think that's fair so I'll change it, and having less than 3 votes hasn't
been an issue in any committer or PMC vote we had so far.
> Yes, but supposedly, HTTP project is the default un
Nope on the default to [LAZY]. When reading it I assumed that was the
technical term for the way we've been voting: at least 3 +1 and no -1.
My bad.
The default should be the strictest (Consensus, if I have my
terminology correct) and if someone wants to deviate, it should be
clearly marked in the
Hi,
> It means that every commit is lazily approved by all the committers. If
> someone has a problem with any commit, they have to explicitly veto it.
I've also added that no formal vote need to be taken in this case, basically
it's assumes the committer has voted +1 and it passes right away (
Hi,
> The default should be the strictest (Consensus, if I have my
> terminology correct)
Changed. We can always revisit if votes start getting too few votes.
> Also, I think for releases and committers/PMC members, LAZY shouldn't
> be an option. If you can't find 3 votes, something is up ;-)
Ag
On 11/6/13 11:17 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> It means that every commit is lazily approved by all the committers. If
>> someone has a problem with any commit, they have to explicitly veto it.
>
>I've also added that no formal vote need to be taken in this case,
>basically it's assumes
Hi,
> And the only difference between this and voting.html
Well voting.html doesn't clearly explain what lazy consensus and review and
commit actually means is practise ie changes are right away and stay until
vetoed.
> is that we allow committers to veto as well as PMC members?
Yes that's is t
Alex,
Do you also see the following warning when compiling DataBindingTest to JS:
Data binding will not be able to detect assignments to 'strings'.
dataProvider="{MyModel(applicationModel).strings}" />
Just checking to make sure I have the same results as you... Also,
when I run the app (debug
Hi,
> And the only difference between this and voting.html is that we allow
> committers to veto as well as PMC members?
There's one or two other minor differences, for example:
"However, the basic rule is that only PMC members have binding votes, and all
others are either discouraged from votin
On 11/6/13 11:41 PM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>Alex,
>
>Do you also see the following warning when compiling DataBindingTest to
>JS:
>
>Data binding will not be able to detect assignments to 'strings'.
>
>dataProvider="{MyModel(applicationModel).strings}" />
Yes.
>
>Just checking to make sure I h
37 matches
Mail list logo
