Nop Mihai. Application has been build without the problem - Issue occurs
right after the launch of app.
Piotr
-
Apache Flex PMC
piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Release-Apache-Flex-4-14-0-tp43390p45031.h
Reminds me of the IntelliJ configuration problem tread [1], but I may be wrong.
[1] http://s.apache.org/6OA
On 6 February 2015 at 09:20, piotrz wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> Couple of days ago I was build with Flex 4.14 an old application written in
> Adobe Flex 4.5 and was getting strange error:
>
> ht
Hi Guys,
Couple of days ago I was build with Flex 4.14 an old application written in
Adobe Flex 4.5 and was getting strange error:
https://paste.apache.org/4LFt
Does anyone know why I'm getting such error ?
Piotr
-
Apache Flex PMC
piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com
--
View this message in context
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that if it didn't happen on dev@, it didn't happen...
Yes ;-)
Balancing jira and the dev list is...a balancing act indeed. I tend to
avoid discussions in jira unless they are directly related to the
specific issue at hand. A
Hi,
>> bits are at the correct URL, and more importantly, if the bits are
>> propagating to the mirrors, then you are good to go.
>
> How do I check that?
By going here and looking at the age histogram at the bottom.
http://www.apache.org/mirrors/
Justin
On 1/28/15, 10:03 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>> bits are at the correct URL, and more importantly, if the bits are
>> propagating to the mirrors, then you are good to go.
>
>How do I check that?
I think that we’ll eventually post this links like this on our website:
http://www.apache.org/dyn/
> bits are at the correct URL, and more importantly, if the bits are
> propagating to the mirrors, then you are good to go.
How do I check that?
EdB
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
I'm pretty sure that if it didn't happen on dev@, it didn't happen...
EdB
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> Hi Bertrand,
>
> I like this idea of tracking discussions in JIRA so we can reference it
> later. I’m not sure if you are aware, but JIRA activity goes to
> issues@fl
Hi Bertrand,
I like this idea of tracking discussions in JIRA so we can reference it
later. I’m not sure if you are aware, but JIRA activity goes to
issues@flex.a.o and not dev@ so we are effectively moving this discussion
off-list. I just wanted to make sure that’s ok with you and whether that
On 1/28/15, 8:00 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>Does "dist@" send commit messages when committing to SVN? I don't see
>it in my list, but I see the 4.14 files here:
Well, I’m pretty sure that normally it does, but I saw an email on an
Apache-wide list yesterday where someone else was complaining
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Erik de Bruin wrote:
>>> IIRC, the bits have to be moved to the dist.apache.org release area and
>>> the installer config needs to point to it. Or have you done that and the
>>> commit email just hasn’t shown up yet?
>>
>> No, I'm on hotel WiFi, so until the other
Hi,
> And I'd add, when fixing such things make sure to briefly document
> what's done in jira, with revision numbers or links to commits so that
> people who care about it can go back later and see exactly what
> happened.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-34729
Can people who made ch
>> IIRC, the bits have to be moved to the dist.apache.org release area and
>> the installer config needs to point to it. Or have you done that and the
>> commit email just hasn’t shown up yet?
>
> No, I'm on hotel WiFi, so until the other guests go to sleep (in about
> 6 hrs or so, I hope ;-)) I w
On 27/01/15 15:51, Erik de Bruin wrote:
Once the commit goes through, I'd appreciate any help I can get with
updating the Installer config and getting the website up to speed for
the 4.14 announcement.
I've been trying to keep a list at
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLEX/Where+to+
>>- anything I'm forgetting ;-)
>
> IIRC, the bits have to be moved to the dist.apache.org release area and
> the installer config needs to point to it. Or have you done that and the
> commit email just hasn’t shown up yet?
No, I'm on hotel WiFi, so until the other guests go to sleep (in about
6
Hi,
What still needs to be dine is listed here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-34560
Justin
On 1/26/15, 10:44 PM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>- the website can be updated in before that. Would anyone mind having
>a look at that?
>- anything I'm forgetting ;-)
IIRC, the bits have to be moved to the dist.apache.org release area and
the installer config needs to point to it. Or have you do
Hi everyone,
I've just posted the [RESULT][VOTE], making 4.14 an 'official' thing!
Thanks for your contributions and patience with the new release
process. I think 'less-RC' has lived up to it's potential and promises
more releases with less hassle.
We're not quite there yet, though...
- everyon
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 10:03 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> ...Guys - please. If there is a legitimate question about a given file's
> provenance then please do make that query in private or in public...
And I'd add, when fixing such things make sure to briefly document
what's done in jira, with revis
On 1/25/15, 2:28 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
>While rat has been run on the release it looks like it's never been run
>on the repo as a whole, as only part of that repo is currently used in
>the SDK release. So thankfully none of these files in question are in the
>release candidate under consi
HI,
It looks to me that the TLF code didn't get a good IP review after donation,
I've counted 50+ IP violations in the code in version control. Some of these
have already been fixed in the last couple of days.
While rat has been run on the release it looks like it's never been run on the
repo
On 1/25/15, 12:21 PM, "piotrz" wrote:
>I've just tried to build with Approval script SDK and it's faile, but
>actually I don't know what these error mean.
>
>http://images.devs-on.net/Image/F45NuFBPL8CHYxWc-Obszar.png
>
>If I shouldn't care about it I will vote +1, because all mustella tests
>s
Hi -
Guys - please. If there is a legitimate question about a given file's
provenance then please do make that query in private or in public. Find the
commit in the log, watch commit emails and call for it at the time.
If there is a singular file here or there that is problematic then it is a
I've just tried to build with Approval script SDK and it's faile, but
actually I don't know what these error mean.
http://images.devs-on.net/Image/F45NuFBPL8CHYxWc-Obszar.png
If I shouldn't care about it I will vote +1, because all mustella tests
seems to be passed.
Piotr
-
Apache Flex P
a...@adobe.com]
Gesendet: Freitag, 23. Januar 2015 00:07
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex 4.14.0
IMO, any scenario where changing the locale isn’t the first thing you do
doesn’t concern me for the release of SDK 4.14.0.
-Alex
On 1/22/15, 2:58 PM, "Justin Mcle
On Jan 24, 2015 1:52 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > You are a member of our PMC so go for it. Others who are interested in
> > helping are encouraged to join. But again, please try to save all your
> > findings for one report. Right now, my priorities are on getting this
> > release o
On 1/24/15, 12:29 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> My vote remains +1. The files in the source package have passed my
>>review.
>
>My question still stands, irrespective of how you voted.
I’m not the RM, but if I was, I would post the bits if I get the right
vote count. The contents of t
Hi,
> My vote remains +1. The files in the source package have passed my review.
My question still stands, irrespective of how you voted.
Justin
On 1/24/15, 12:21 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>I assume you will hold off releasing until this review is complete then?
My vote remains +1. The files in the source package have passed my review.
-Alex
Hi,
> You are a member of our PMC so go for it. Others who are interested in
> helping are encouraged to join. But again, please try to save all your
> findings for one report. Right now, my priorities are on getting this
> release out.
I assume you will hold off releasing until this review is
On 1/24/15, 12:07 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>HI,
>
>> Donation procedures were followed correctly. Could some file have
>>incorrect provenance? Sure.
>
>I think it a little more than some files. If a casual glance in 5 minutes
>can pick up some issues it's quite likely there's more issues th
HI,
> Donation procedures were followed correctly. Could some file have incorrect
> provenance? Sure.
I think it a little more than some files. If a casual glance in 5 minutes can
pick up some issues it's quite likely there's more issues there.
This is a formal request to have the PMC review
Donation procedures were followed correctly. Could some file have
incorrect provenance? Sure. The probability pretty much can never go to
zero. IF we find mistakes we will correct them. You may spend as much
time as you wish scrubbing, but please try to limit the amount of
community energy spe
Hi,
> I just saw your vote. Can you provide more detail in this thread? I have
> no idea what your objection is based on.
See my reply to your other email. Looks like IP review may of been skipped (?)
and while we not using the full repos the fact we have files that shouldn't be
there in vers
I just saw your vote. Can you provide more detail in this thread? I have
no idea what your objection is based on.
-Alex
On 1/23/15, 9:20 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>
>
>On 1/23/15, 4:18 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Someone should be able to take the source release and make the binary
On 1/23/15, 4:18 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Someone should be able to take the source release and make the binary
>from it, However it looks like we not including the flash removing code
>or TLF code in the source release. Should we?
I’m not sure I understood that, but my copy of the s
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex 4.14.0
> From: jus...@classsoftware.com
> Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 11:16:48 +1100
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>
> Hi,
>
> Looks a merge a while back may of undid some things that it probably
> shouldn't of.
>
>
Hi,
Someone should be able to take the source release and make the binary from it,
However it looks like we not including the flash removing code or TLF code in
the source release. Should we?
Justin
Hi,
Looks a merge a while back may of undid some things that it probably shouldn't
of.
For example do a git log of ResourceManagerImpl.as
git log frameworks/projects/framework/src/mx/resources/ResourceManagerImpl.as
Was this change not meant to be in the release?
Relevant JIRA:
https://issues
;>
>> -Mark
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com]
>> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 2:15 AM
>> To: dev@flex.apache.org; priv...@flex.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex 4.14.0
>>
>> I ha
DK works for me as well with my usual simple tests.
>
> -Mark
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 2:15 AM
> To: dev@flex.apache.org; priv...@flex.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex
The SDK works for me as well with my usual simple tests.
-Mark
-Original Message-
From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com]
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 2:15 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org; priv...@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex 4.14.0
I have completed all the
>> I will make a note in the announcement that, until a new Installer is
>> released (which Om already told us he'll take care of),
>
> Wha? What did I say?
Did I mis-remember? Sorry. We'll figure it out, I'm sure ;-)
EdB
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06
Sounds fun! Have me in mind… ;-)
On Jan 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> going skiing: vive la France!
On Jan 23, 2015 12:34 PM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>
> > Do you have any idea why this is happening?
>
> Yes, and a fix is already submitted to the Installer repo.
>
> I will make a note in the announcement that, until a new Installer is
> released (which Om already told us he'll take care of),
Wh
>> The consensus on the Installer issue is that it's minor, with a workaround
>> and will be short-lived.
>
> You may want to give other PMC members a chance to test - to reduce the risk
> of another RC. It's a long weekend her (Australia Day) so I not going to be
> able to check the RC until lat
I agree. All signs are green. The license issues have been fixed and
no further ones have been raised. The RSL issue was fixed. The
consensus on the Installer issue is that it's minor, with a workaround
and will be short-lived.
I'll start my engines (= lot's of morning coffee) and turn out the RC
I have completed all the tests I normally run before voting. I’m good to
go for this release.
-Alex
On 1/22/15, 9:13 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>
>
>On 1/22/15, 7:41 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>
>>Status:
>>
>>1) License issue: Alex took care of this, right?
>
>IMO, even if it isn’t perfect, it
> Do you have any idea why this is happening?
Yes, and a fix is already submitted to the Installer repo.
I will make a note in the announcement that, until a new Installer is
released (which Om already told us he'll take care of), changing the
locale at any point after the main screen may give p
Do you have any idea why this is happening?
On Jan 23, 2015, at 1:35 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> HI,
>
>> Did you prove that 4.13 installs correctly with the exact same steps?
>
> Yes 4.13 has no issues, this only effects 4.14.
>
> Justin
HI,
> Did you prove that 4.13 installs correctly with the exact same steps?
Yes 4.13 has no issues, this only effects 4.14.
Justin
I think it’s somewhere between a minor and major issue (probably leaning
towards minor), but either way, it seems like an installer issue, so I don’t
see why it should be a blocker for the 4.14 release.
On Jan 23, 2015, at 1:14 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> IMO, any scenario where chang
On 1/22/15, 3:14 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> IMO, any scenario where changing the locale isn’t the first thing you do
>> doesn’t concern me for the release of SDK 4.14.0.
>
>Given that's it likely that the majority of users change the locale, I
>think we need to carefully consider this
Hi,
> IMO, any scenario where changing the locale isn’t the first thing you do
> doesn’t concern me for the release of SDK 4.14.0.
Given that's it likely that the majority of users change the locale, I think we
need to carefully consider this before releasing. What do other PMC member
think?
J
IMO, any scenario where changing the locale isn’t the first thing you do
doesn’t concern me for the release of SDK 4.14.0.
-Alex
On 1/22/15, 2:58 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>We have (IMO) a fairly serious issue with the installer and 4.14.
>
>To reproduce do this:
>1. Run installer
>2. S
Hi,
We have (IMO) a fairly serious issue with the installer and 4.14.
To reproduce do this:
1. Run installer
2. Select dev build and select 4.14 RC hit next
3. Select directory and hit next
4. Change locale
5. Check all licenses (shows wrong list for 4.14) and hit next
6. Installation completes
On 1/22/15, 7:41 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>Status:
>
>1) License issue: Alex took care of this, right?
IMO, even if it isn’t perfect, it is good enough.
>
>I'll give it another day or so, then I'll assume everyone (esp. PMC
>members!) checked the nightlies and concluded that the above issue
> OK, good to know. I think there may be a cases where, if someone doesn’t
> run frameworks-rsls in the same calendar day they run installer.xml it
> will still not do the right thing, but that is probably not worth
> addressing.
I knew you were gonna say that!
I think we have reduced an already
OK, good to know. I think there may be a cases where, if someone doesn’t
run frameworks-rsls in the same calendar day they run installer.xml it
will still not do the right thing, but that is probably not worth
addressing.
On 1/22/15, 6:51 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>I tested this. The token tha
Status:
1) License issue: Alex took care of this, right?
2) locale "issue": will be fixed in next installer release, and it is
not really a blocker...
3) RSL: 'installer.xml' has been fixed, it now correctly replaces
tokens when building an IDE-compatible SDK from a source package?
I'll give it a
I tested this. The token that is replaced with the current date in the
new code is not present in the binary release. Ergo, nothing is
replaced when 'installer.xml' is run on a binary release...
EdB
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> I looked at the commit, and while I would
I looked at the commit, and while I would expect it work for the scenario
in question, I’m worried it will break the main install.
The issue is that the RSLs are stamped with a date and time. The main
install is going to run at a much later date and time. It may be more of
a question of parsing
>> vote +1 whether Erik fixes it or not.
>
> Pretty sure I have a fix, checking it now on a clean source package.
The fix is in ;-)
EdB
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
On 22/01/15 14:10, Alex Harui wrote:
Except:
>a) Linux users can't use the binary to install
Has anyone tried it? Linux users and anyone not wanting to use the
Installer should be able to take the convenience binary package, expand it
into a folder and run “ant -f installer.xml” and everything
> vote +1 whether Erik fixes it or not.
Pretty sure I have a fix, checking it now on a clean source package.
EdB
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
On 1/22/15, 4:24 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>
>> We use the sdk binary package to do our app development and the RSLs
>>are already built in it.
>
>Except:
>a) Linux users can't use the binary to install
Has anyone tried it? Linux users and anyone not wanting to use the
Installer shoul
> These files are ignored by version control.
Not true. My bad. Looking further...
EdB
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Ah, I think I have it. Justin probably ran
'ide/flashbuilder/makeApacheFlexForIDE.sh' as the final step of the
4.13 style IDE preparation. This copies the *-config.xml files from
'ide/flashbuilder/config' over the config files in 'frameworks/'.
These files are ignored by version control. I'm now l
> For instance if you followed the READEME instructions in 4.13 you get:
Would you mind listing the steps you took for the 4.13 build, like you
did for 4.14?
Thanks,
EdB
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
al Message-
From: Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 7:24 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex 4.14.0
Hi,
> We use the sdk binary package to do our app development and the RSLs are
> already built in it.
Except
> So basically the README instructions are incorrect. How would they need to
> change in order to not have this issue?
I'd say the scripts are incorrect. I can look into it, if you're not
doing that already?
EdB
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I
Hi,
> Installer.xml is probably expecting some properties to match up. It was
> designed to work with the binary package generated in the same run that
> creates the source package.
So basically the README instructions are incorrect. How would they need to
change in order to not have this issue
Hi,
> We use the sdk binary package to do our app development and the RSLs are
> already built in it.
Except:
a) Linux users can't use the binary to install
b) Apache projects release source not binaries
But despite that the PMC can vote on a RC as they see fit (as long as it
follows Apache r
rsday, January 22, 2015 2:16 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex 4.14.0
Installer.xml is probably expecting some properties to match up. It was
designed to work with the binary package generated in the same run that
creates the source package.
How many folks are act
> How many folks are actually going to use the source package and need RSLs?
A very, very tiny number... But since we're in a holding pattern until
Justin approves the entire licensing and legal documentation setup for
4.14, we might as well give this a go.
EdB
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan
Installer.xml is probably expecting some properties to match up. It was
designed to work with the binary package generated in the same run that
creates the source package.
How many folks are actually going to use the source package and need RSLs?
-Alex
On 1/21/15, 10:23 PM, "Erik de Bruin" wro
> To reproduce the RSL issue:
> 1. get the source package
> 2. compile as per README by:
> ant main
> ant frameworks-rsls
> 3. Turn into IDE by running:
> ant -f installer.xml
>
> The issue is with the flex config XML file and the RSL entries.
What is the difference between
Hi,
To reproduce the RSL issue:
1. get the source package
2. compile as per README by:
ant main
ant frameworks-rsls
3. Turn into IDE by running:
ant -f installer.xml
The issue is with the flex config XML file and the RSL entries.
For instance if you followed the READEME i
On 1/21/15, 2:30 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
>
>The copyright in the Java file (1999) may be an earlier version of the
>license. [1]
You mean sources/org/w3c/css/sac/LexicalUnit.java?
Actually, there are several java files that have W3C headers, and I think
all but LexicalUnit point to the 2
Hi,
> It was pretty confusing, so please double-check my sequence of logic:
It's certainly not 100% clear.
> 4) On that page, which is the Document license, it said:
>
> "The software or Document Type Definitions (DTDs) associated with W3C
> specifications are governed by the Software Notice
>
It was pretty confusing, so please double-check my sequence of logic:
1) I opened svg10.dtd
2) It had a link in the header [4]
3) That page had a link about “document use” [5]
4) On that page, which is the Document license, it said:
"The software or Document Type Definitions (DTDs) associated wit
Hi,
Re the LICENSE changes. I've not had time to investigate in detail but I would
assume the dtd's are under the W3C documentation license [2] not the software
one as they are defined in the W3C recommendation. [2][3] Do we know what
version of SVG the version of Bartik we bundles supports?
T
I'm sorry guys this was some issue with Intellij IDEA.
Piotr
-
Apache Flex PMC
piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Release-Apache-Flex-4-14-0-tp43390p44468.html
Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing
I've just tried to compile with newest RC some app. In the installer I choose
FP 16, but in Intellij IDEA I see only FP 15. I'm getting error during the
compilation:
unable to open 'C:/sdks/Apache Flex 4.14
RC/frameworks/libs/player/15.0/playerglobal.swc'
I see in the frameworks/libs/player/16.0/
RSLs still have a valuable purpose depending on how many applications you host
out of one domain.
-Mark
-Original Message-
From: Harbs [mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 3:44 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex 4.14.0
I've cancelled the vote, and I've re-enabled the RC nightly builds. In
about 2 hrs. Alex's changes to the legal docs and build scripts should
be available for testing.
I will cut a new RC as soon as I have confirmation about the remaining
issues have been satisfactorily addressed.
EdB
On Wed,
Cool.
I’d guess Justin’s issue was a Player trust file problem, and restarting Flash
Builder would probably fix that.
On Jan 21, 2015, at 11:30 AM, Tom Chiverton wrote:
> It's just installed now :-)
>
> The files have the same names as mentioned in the config files:
>
> tchiverton@ev34:/tmp/
It's just installed now :-)
The files have the same names as mentioned in the config files:
tchiverton@ev34:/tmp/apache-flex-sdk-4.14.0-bin$ find . -iname
'textLayout*swf'
./frameworks/rsls/textLayout_4.14.0.20150119.swf
tchiverton@ev34:/tmp/apache-flex-sdk-4.14.0-bin$ grep -Hrn
textLayout_4.
Like I said; I have not been using RSLs since I switched to Apache Flex, so I
can’t comment one way or the other.
I guess it would be helpful if someone checks whether the behavior is actually
different.
On Jan 21, 2015, at 11:14 AM, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> The RSL 'issue' Justin reports isn't
The RSL 'issue' Justin reports isn't a regression, it's been around since 4.9...
"Looks like the file is question is named
"textLayout_4.14.0.20150121.swf" not the expected
"textLayout_20150121.swf".
The RSL in question has had the version number included since that
release: 'textLayout_4.9.1.144
Okay. Can you confirm that it’s broken?
On Jan 21, 2015, at 11:01 AM, Tom Chiverton wrote:
> On 21/01/15 08:43, Harbs wrote:
>> RSLs are turned off by default and they do not really offer any performance
>> advantage using Apache Flex.
> It depends on your use case. If you update your app more
The License issue and maybe the copyright issue might be worth another RC.
I definitely apologize for missing those things earlier. I’m out of time
for tonight to try to reproduce RSL issue. The locale issue for Ant has
been there since we started using Ant.
I pushed my guess at how to fix the
On 21/01/15 08:43, Harbs wrote:
RSLs are turned off by default and they do not really offer any performance
advantage using Apache Flex.
It depends on your use case. If you update your app more often than
SDKs, you can give you users a smaller download after app updates, at
the cost of a lar
I’m not clear what was broken in Justin’s test. He mentioned that there was a
problem with RSLs, but RSLs are turned off by default and they do not really
offer any performance advantage using Apache Flex.
On Jan 21, 2015, at 10:36 AM, piotrz wrote:
> I agree with Justin. Once you build your a
I agree with Justin. Once you build your application and it is simply doesn't
work because of the SDK issue it is a blocker.
I haven't vote yet just because I didn't check any existing application with
current SDK.
Piotr
-
Apache Flex PMC
piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com
--
View this message in
Hi,
> I don’t think I’m seeing this. If the first thing I do in the UI is
> choose a new locale, when I get to the license list, it looks right to me.
Reproducible every time for me. Are you sure you're running 3.1?
> AFAIK, it’s been this way for quite some time now.
But not in the current
Hi,
> I don't consider the issues Justin uncovered after belatedly testing
> the RC to be blockers. Please continue voting, there's still a day
> left before I start counting ;-)
IMO License issues, the locale issue and RSL issue (a regression) are all
blockers, unless we fix these and make anot
A brief message from your friendly Release Manager:
I don't consider the issues Justin uncovered after belatedly testing
the RC to be blockers. Please continue voting, there's still a day
left before I start counting ;-)
EdB
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
> On 1/20/15,
On 1/20/15, 5:11 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>When installing via the installer we have a couple of issues:
>
>1.If you change locale you get an incorrect list of licenses. This
>happens if you select the locale up front as the first step or if you
>change it at the license step.
I don’t
Hi,
When installing via the installer we have a couple of issues:
1.If you change locale you get an incorrect list of licenses. This happens if
you select the locale up front as the first step or if you change it at the
license step.
2. The installer RTEs if you have any licence boxes checked
1 - 100 of 241 matches
Mail list logo
