Re: FlexJS at HTML5 Dev Conf?

2014-06-17 Thread Alex Harui
On 6/17/14 4:49 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote: >Okay, I will see if I can take some time off to do this. If yes, do I >have >permission to use your slides from your past presentations? Absolutely.

Re: FlexJS at HTML5 Dev Conf?

2014-06-17 Thread OmPrakash Muppirala
Okay, I will see if I can take some time off to do this. If yes, do I have permission to use your slides from your past presentations? Thanks, Om On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > I think you should represent FlexJS for us. If you can't I'll try to find > out if I can find

Re: FlexJS at HTML5 Dev Conf?

2014-06-17 Thread Alex Harui
I think you should represent FlexJS for us. If you can't I'll try to find out if I can find the funds to do it. On 6/17/14 3:59 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote: >The HTML5 dev conf is coming up in October in SF. The call for session >speakers went out today [1] > >Last year, I attended a sessi

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.1 - RC3

2014-06-17 Thread Alex Harui
On 6/17/14 4:10 PM, "DarkStone" wrote: >Hi Alex, > >OK I got it, SWFObject location will be assigned to GitHub since Flex SDK >4.12.2 > >I hope 4.12.2 won't have that Callout bug found in 4.13.0 Nightly Build : >) It shouldn't. I just fixed that issue. -Alex

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.1 - RC3

2014-06-17 Thread DarkStone
Hi Alex, OK I got it, SWFObject location will be assigned to GitHub since Flex SDK 4.12.2 I hope 4.12.2 won't have that Callout bug found in 4.13.0 Nightly Build : ) DarkStone 2014-06-18 At 2014-06-18 07:00:54, "Alex Harui" wrote: >Hi Darkstone, > >That's great that you might finish translati

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.1 - RC3

2014-06-17 Thread Alex Harui
Hi Darkstone, That's great that you might finish translations soon. The SWFObject location is tied to the SDK release, not the Installer. Only the nightly builds know to look at GitHub. I am trying to prepare an official release with that change ASAP. I think we are going to call that release 4

FlexJS at HTML5 Dev Conf?

2014-06-17 Thread OmPrakash Muppirala
The HTML5 dev conf is coming up in October in SF. The call for session speakers went out today [1] Last year, I attended a session on cross-compiling to JavaScript that included Coffescript, Typescript, etc. I think introducing FlexJS to that audience would be a great idea. Alex, Peter, anyone

Re:[VOTE] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.1 - RC3

2014-06-17 Thread DarkStone
Hi Alex, I have finished 5 out of 6 translation files, I think I might finish all in this week. My Chinese fellows, they all come to ask me why they can't finish the installation of the Flex SDK, so I need to ask, in the official release of Flex SDK Installer 3.1, will it download SWFObject fr

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.1 - RC3

2014-06-17 Thread Alex Harui
On 6/17/14 2:34 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: >Hi, > >> The Google copyright is in the TTF file. Is that sufficient for you to >> accept that these are Google fonts? >No it is not acceptable. Looking inside a binary file to find out the >copyright is not exactly obvious or convenient. Wow! So y

Re: [VOTE] Apache FlexJS 0.0.2 RC1

2014-06-17 Thread Alex Harui
On 6/17/14 2:46 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: >Hi, > >>> At the very least this should of been discussed (and perhaps VOTEed on) >>> before being implemented in 2 releases. >> I don't think there is anything to discuss and vote on as long as it >> doesn't violate policy. Nobody has to use it. I'

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.1 - RC3

2014-06-17 Thread OmPrakash Muppirala
Justin, did you see my earlier email? Thanks, Om On Jun 17, 2014 2:35 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: > Hi, > > > The Google copyright is in the TTF file. Is that sufficient for you to > > accept that these are Google fonts? > No it is not acceptable. Looking inside a binary file to find out the >

Re: [VOTE] Apache FlexJS 0.0.2 RC1

2014-06-17 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, >> At the very least this should of been discussed (and perhaps VOTEed on) >> before being implemented in 2 releases. > I don't think there is anything to discuss and vote on as long as it > doesn't violate policy. Nobody has to use it. I'm just offering it up as > a convenience. It has alr

Re: [VOTE] Apache FlexJS 0.0.2 RC1

2014-06-17 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, Sorry Peter again didn't mean to single you out, just trying to illustrate a point. > I think tools which make it easier to validate will encourage people to > participate more. Again I agree here, if it gets people looking at released and understanding the process that great. But PMC bindi

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.1 - RC3

2014-06-17 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, > The Google copyright is in the TTF file. Is that sufficient for you to > accept that these are Google fonts? No it is not acceptable. Looking inside a binary file to find out the copyright is not exactly obvious or convenient. > Add that to what file according to what quote from the LICE

Re: [VOTE] Apache FlexJS 0.0.2 RC1

2014-06-17 Thread Peter Ent
I ran the script twice; the first to verify that it worked and on the second run, read every word that it produced. Some of it I didn't know the rightness or wrongness of the statements, so that, to me, makes my vote not quite as valid. But then I would imagine that most people who vote are not 100

Re: Patches for review

2014-06-17 Thread Alex Harui
Excellent. I'm gearing up for a 4.12.2 release and will be spending this week catching up on SDK JIRA issues. I'll review it in a day or so unless someone beats me to it. Thanks, -Alex On 6/17/14 4:59 AM, "João Fernandes" wrote: >Hi, I just attached patches to bugs >https://issues.apache.org/

Re: [VOTE] Apache FlexJS 0.0.2 RC1

2014-06-17 Thread Alex Harui
On 6/17/14 10:29 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: >Hi, > >> I followed these threads as they happened. I have not gone back and >> reviewed them, but my takeaway was this: A PMC cannot not use the >>output >> of a tool to determine the correctness of a release package because the >> determination o

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.1 - RC3

2014-06-17 Thread Alex Harui
On 6/17/14 10:10 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: >Hi, > >> AFAICT, it is the Google font, not the Adobe Font. >Sorry I don't know and hard to tell where it come from as there no other >info in that directory. May be in the fonts metadata I guess? IMO All the >more reason for stating it somewhere. Th

Re: [VOTE] Apache FlexJS 0.0.2 RC1

2014-06-17 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, > I followed these threads as they happened. I have not gone back and > reviewed them, but my takeaway was this: A PMC cannot not use the output > of a tool to determine the correctness of a release package because the > determination of the correctness of LICENSE and NOTICE and the headers

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.1 - RC3

2014-06-17 Thread OmPrakash Muppirala
The Google Open Sans font issue was discussed during the first release of the Installer and it was cleared by Bertrand. It went through the IPMC without any objections, as well. I think we are in the clear. Here are the relevant emails [1] Thanks, Om [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbo

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.1 - RC3

2014-06-17 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, > What part of the AL says that a copyright must be included/acknowledged Also under US (and many other places) you need to acknowledge copyright and/or get the owner permission to do so - in this case the Apache license give us permission to use the fonts. An Apache licence doesn't remove

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.1 - RC3

2014-06-17 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, > AFAICT, it is the Google font, not the Adobe Font. Sorry I don't know and hard to tell where it come from as there no other info in that directory. May be in the fonts metadata I guess? IMO All the more reason for stating it somewhere. > Specifically, what changes do you propose to the re

Re: [VOTE] Apache FlexJS 0.0.2 RC1

2014-06-17 Thread Alex Harui
I followed these threads as they happened. I have not gone back and reviewed them, but my takeaway was this: A PMC cannot not use the output of a tool to determine the correctness of a release package because the determination of the correctness of LICENSE and NOTICE and the headers cannot be inf

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.1 - RC3

2014-06-17 Thread Alex Harui
AFAICT, it is the Google font, not the Adobe Font. If you have evidence to the contrary please supply that evidence, otherwise, let's proceed as if it is the Google font under AL. Specifically, what changes do you propose to the release package? What part of the AL says that a copyright must be

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.1 - RC3

2014-06-17 Thread Justin Mclean
There no issue with bundling if you abide by the terms of the license for the Apache license that quite easy.

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.1 - RC3

2014-06-17 Thread Justin Mclean
Please read terms of Apache license both license template and header containing copyright must be included. If you bundled Apache made software no changes are required, but for other copyright owners they need to be acknowledged. As the font can't have a header as such makes sense to put a couple

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.1 - RC3

2014-06-17 Thread Alex Harui
I have verified to my satisfaction that is Google's Open Sans and covered by AL, so would you agree no need to change LICENSE whether bundled or not? Regarding NOTICE, it is my understanding from the document you linked to that AL dependencies do not require changes to NOTICE. The issue with Flex

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.1 - RC3

2014-06-17 Thread Justin Mclean
If it is Adobe's font it's covered by this license. http://www.adobe.com/type/browser/legal/pdfs/OpenFontLicense.pdf

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.1 - RC3

2014-06-17 Thread Justin Mclean
If not bundled then no need to add to LICENSE (or NOTICE) but if bundled and Apache is not owner we need to state that. I'm not even 100% sure the files are from Google, didn't Adobe also release an open source font of similar name?

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.1 - RC3

2014-06-17 Thread Justin Mclean
The fact that we don't own it ie same issue we had with flex unit

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.1 - RC3

2014-06-17 Thread Alex Harui
I'm confused. What should we add to the LICENSE given the font is under AL? My script helped me notice that Open Sans is in the source package and I wondered about the "take" policy and whether it should be bundled or not, but I don't see how that affects LICENSE. -Alex On 6/17/14 3:00 AM, "Jus

Patches for review

2014-06-17 Thread João Fernandes
Hi, I just attached patches to bugs https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-23915 and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-34375 which are quick fixes. -- João Fernandes

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.1 - RC3

2014-06-17 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, -1 (binding) LICENCE is missing mention of the OpenSans font that is included in the source package. [1] [2] While this is "minor", and I know we've missed this in previous releases, is it important that we get the LICENSE file corrrect. Justin PS I found this by manually running rat and

RE: flex-sdk_mustella - Build # 954 - Fixed!

2014-06-17 Thread Kessler CTR Mark J
Well that's always promising. -Original Message- From: flex.muste...@gmail.com [mailto:flex.muste...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 2:13 AM To: comm...@flex.apache.org; bigosma...@gmail.com Subject: flex-sdk_mustella - Build # 954 - Fixed! flex-sdk_mustella - Build # 954 - Fixed:

Re: [VOTE] Apache FlexJS 0.0.2 RC1

2014-06-17 Thread Erik de Bruin
> > 100% agree and that a useful and good thing, but that does not make them > legal releases, and IMO it exposes the PMC (and thus the board) to greater > risk. > Yeah, this has to stop. We cannot avoid doing 'useful and good things' simply because some bored lawyer hypothesised there might be an

Re: [VOTE] Apache FlexJS 0.0.2 RC1

2014-06-17 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, > Link to the discussion, please? There also the community building and social aspects of a release [1] (from the same thread), ie "Community over code". Thanks, Justin 1. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201405.mbox/%3cce4928b9-22d5-456c-817c-85fae66ac...@jagun

Re: [VOTE] Apache FlexJS 0.0.2 RC1

2014-06-17 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, > It seems to me that a script provides consistency, > completeness and ease of use, allowing more people to participate in the > testing and voting process. 100% agree and that a useful and good thing, but that does not make them legal releases, and IMO it exposes the PMC (and thus the boar

Re: [VOTE] Apache FlexJS 0.0.2 RC1

2014-06-17 Thread Tom Chiverton
On 17/06/14 10:05, Erik de Bruin wrote: And what is considered "manually"? Do I have to manually type commands into the terminal in order to comply? Is an ant script a script? Why are scripts considered "bad"? It seems to me that a script provides consistency, completeness and ease of use, allowi

Re: [VOTE] Apache FlexJS 0.0.2 RC1

2014-06-17 Thread Justin Mclean
HI, > Link to the discussion, please? Been several - they are quite long - the 3rd one is probably the most relevant. 1. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201405.mbox/%3cCAAS6=7jTVyaDhwepAqob-=83dxj-uams9gyg5j5xdhyybva...@mail.gmail.com%3e 2.http://mail-archives.apache.o

Re: [VOTE] Apache FlexJS 0.0.2 RC1

2014-06-17 Thread Erik de Bruin
> > this is against Apache policy - releases must be manually checked That seems oddly backwards for an organisation that exists to create, support and evangelise bit collections that automate things... And what is considered "manually"? Do I have to manually type commands into the terminal in o

Re: [VOTE] Apache FlexJS 0.0.2 RC1

2014-06-17 Thread OmPrakash Muppirala
On Jun 17, 2014 12:51 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: > > Hi, > > > There is an ant script that automates the common steps to validate a > > release. Instead of individually downloading the package and signature > > files, unzipping, etc, you can instead: > > 1) create an empty folder, > > 2) download

Re: [VOTE] Apache FlexJS 0.0.2 RC1

2014-06-17 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, > There is an ant script that automates the common steps to validate a > release. Instead of individually downloading the package and signature > files, unzipping, etc, you can instead: > 1) create an empty folder, > 2) download into that folder this file: > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist

Re: flex-sdk_mustella - Build # 954 - Fixed!

2014-06-17 Thread OmPrakash Muppirala
Thank you! For staying on top of it :-) Om On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Erik de Bruin wrote: > Yes! > > Thanks, all. > > EdB > > > > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:12 AM, wrote: > >> flex-sdk_mustella - Build # 954 - Fixed: >> >> http://flex-mustella.cloudapp.net/job/flex-sdk_mustella/954/

Re: flex-sdk_mustella - Build # 954 - Fixed!

2014-06-17 Thread Erik de Bruin
Yes! Thanks, all. EdB On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:12 AM, wrote: > flex-sdk_mustella - Build # 954 - Fixed: > > http://flex-mustella.cloudapp.net/job/flex-sdk_mustella/954/ > > Changes for Build #943 > > Changes for Build #944 > > Changes for Build #945 > > Changes for Build #946 > [nick] Reve

[DISCUSS] Discuss Apache FlexJS 0.0.2 RC1

2014-06-17 Thread Alex Harui
This is the discuss thread. The main goal of this release is to fix some launch config issues on Windows. The correct URL of the approval script is: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/flexjs/0.0.2/rc1/ApproveFlexJS. xml Thanks, -Alex

[VOTE] Apache FlexJS 0.0.2 RC1

2014-06-17 Thread Alex Harui
Hi, This is vote for the second (0.0.2) release of Apache FlexJS. The release candidate can be found here; https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/flexjs/0.0.2/rc1/ Before voting please review the section,"What are the ASF requirements on approving a release?", at: http://www.apache.org/dev/

[VOTE] Apache Flex FalconJX 0.0.2 RC1

2014-06-17 Thread Alex Harui
Hi, This is vote for the second (0.0.2) release of the FalconJX (and Falcon) compilers. I am not proposing a separate Falcon-only release package at this time. The only purpose of the FalconJX packages are to serve as upstream packages for the FlexJS release. The release candidate can be found

[DISCUSS] Discuss Apache Flex FalconJX 0.0.2 RC1

2014-06-17 Thread Alex Harui
This is the discussion thread.