Hi,
I just finished the last issue in the unit tests and now managed to correctly
build FlexPMD without disabling tests.
I have however discovered a potential bug in Flexmojos which I will have a look
at. The Flash tests start, but the player immediately closes again. Therefore I
disabled the
Hi,
Looks like the dev page isn't in alphabetical order anymore, there's no reason
for Darkstone and Chris to be hiding at the bottom, that's Tom's job :-)
Someone mind correcting?
Thanks,
Justin
Hi,
> Don't know if it is a blocker. I can ask legal. I'm just wondering if the
> current text properly indicates the permissive license for English.
I really don't think you need to ask legal again but if you really feel you
need to go ahead. We as a PMC should be able to decide, and in it's d
Don't know if it is a blocker. I can ask legal. I'm just wondering if the
current text properly indicates the permissive license for English.
Sent via the PANTECH Discover, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone.
Justin Mclean wrote:
Hi,
> The concern: The README points folks to openoffice.org and
> http
Hi,
Scratch [1] has seen a huge increase in use recently and now has over
6,000,000+ projects!
Just noticed this [2] which has had 100 replies and 3000+ views.
Anything we can do to help here? One thing that may be useful is to get the
installer to install multiple playerglobal swcs or is that
Hi,
> And ... when preparing the next RC ... if you could do a RELEASE run, we
> could stage our first Release as Maven artifacts too.
The current SNAPSHOP needs to be reviewed first.
Thanks,
Justin
Hi,
> The concern: The README points folks to openoffice.org and
> http://hunspell.sourceforge.net.
And in your view is this a blocker and requires another release candidate or
can we fix in the next release?
> 1) Are we sure it is ok to add the asdoc into the source package?
There is no requ
OK, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-8285 will track the
request for the repo.
On 8/29/14 11:21 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>Yes, please a separate repo. 'flex-radii8' sound appropriate ;-)
>
>EdB
>
>
>
>On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>> So, we are all set to com
IMO, #3 should be email dev@.
On 9/1/14 1:15 AM, "Tom Chiverton" wrote:
>How about
>
>1. generate patch against current (develop) branch (does someone who
>knows git inside out know if 'git diff' is good enough
>2. attach patch.
>3. email user@ with '[patch] [issue number]' in the subject
>
>?
>
And ... when preparing the next RC ... if you could do a RELEASE run, we could
stage our first Release as Maven artifacts too. Usually you would have to
override the "type" property in the maven.xml to trigger deploying to the
release staging repo.
Would definitely like giving this a test-run b
On 9/1/14 1:56 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> My apologies for this going so long. Basically, all we need now is a
>> ruling from legal-discuss as to whether the license for Kevin Atkinson
>>is
>> considered BSD or MIT or otherwise Apache-compatible.
>
>And that now been confirmed by leg
Hi,
> My apologies for this going so long. Basically, all we need now is a
> ruling from legal-discuss as to whether the license for Kevin Atkinson is
> considered BSD or MIT or otherwise Apache-compatible.
And that now been confirmed by legal so all is good with the release candidate.
Unless a
How about
1. generate patch against current (develop) branch (does someone who
knows git inside out know if 'git diff' is good enough
2. attach patch.
3. email user@ with '[patch] [issue number]' in the subject
?
Tom
On 01/09/14 05:04, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Is there any guide or tutor
My apologies for this going so long. Basically, all we need now is a
ruling from legal-discuss as to whether the license for Kevin Atkinson is
considered BSD or MIT or otherwise Apache-compatible.
Should be over as soon as we get the ruling.
-Alex
On 9/1/14 12:14 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>T
Hi,
> Apparently there are two (or more) interpretations possible.
Nope in this case it's quite clear cut. Either SCOWL contains a Category X
license or not.
Every single other objection that has raised has been sorted by the discussion
on legal and the current RC still complies with Apache li
It's all very confusing to me. It isn't my call. I have asked for a
ruling from legal-discuss. It is odd that other products like AOO haven't
switched to this dictionary.
Once they give us the green light, we'll be all set.
-Alex
On 9/1/14 12:04 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> To be s
This is another one for the (yet to be implemented)
legal-disc...@flex.apache.org mailing list :-(
Apparently there are two (or more) interpretations possible. Either agree
to disagree and toss a coin, or ask someone who can break the tie to take a
look, and move on, please.
EdB
On Mon, Sep 1,
Hi,
> Good news is that the number of errors for FlexJS 0.0.1 was ~900
From memory their was a google closure MD5 / version issue that existed for >
week that caused most of them.
Justin
Hi,
> To be safe, we should probably get a ruling from legal-dicuss on the SCOWL
> dictionaries.
No ruling is required, there are no incompatible licences, all dictionaries are
based on word lists in the public domian and/or licenses unencumbered by rights
that would be incompatable with Apach
19 matches
Mail list logo
