On 6/8/15, 1:02 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Christofer Dutz
> wrote:
>> ...@Alex could you check if Adobe is legally ok with the way I
>>implemented it,...
>
>I'm not sure why a company would have a say on something that Apache
>Flex does in its own
Absolutely Right Bertrand :)
2015-06-08 10:02 GMT+02:00 Bertrand Delacretaz :
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Christofer Dutz
> wrote:
> > ...@Alex could you check if Adobe is legally ok with the way I
> implemented it,...
>
> I'm not sure why a company would have a say on something th
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Christofer Dutz
wrote:
> ...@Alex could you check if Adobe is legally ok with the way I implemented
> it,...
I'm not sure why a company would have a say on something that Apache
Flex does in its own code.
But if you guys think this is needed, I strongly reco
On 6/6/15, 9:24 AM, "Christofer Dutz" wrote:
>Ok so I implemented the new option ... could you please give that a try?
>@Alex could you check if Adobe is legally ok with the way I implemented
>it, @Others ... could you check that this option suits your needs?
Let’s make sure others like it fir
at
"flex-maven-extension".
What do you think?
Chris
Von: Christofer Dutz
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Juni 2015 23:18
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: AW: AW: AW: AW: AW: Another option for auto-acknowledging the Adobe
download on CI servers?
: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: AW: AW: Another option for auto-acknowledging the Adobe
download on CI servers?
I think is right. We as the "tech part" should try to suggest things like
this so all legal stuff will not affect what we are trying to accomplish,
since things like this could b
I think is right. We as the "tech part" should try to suggest things like
this so all legal stuff will not affect what we are trying to accomplish,
since things like this could be a stone above us (in certain stuff like the
one we are discussing about maven)
Thanks Alex
2015-06-04 18:42 GMT+02:00
On 6/4/15, 9:15 AM, "Christofer Dutz" wrote:
>But isn't the "auto-accept" sort of equivalent to typing "y" ... both are
>options of accepting, aren't they?
>
>If you run a build and type "no", the build will fail. If you start it
>again and type "yes" it will continue. So explicitly settings up
But isn't the "auto-accept" sort of equivalent to typing "y" ... both are
options of accepting, aren't they?
If you run a build and type "no", the build will fail. If you start it again
and type "yes" it will continue. So explicitly settings up "auto-accepting" for
me is equivalent to typing "y
