On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> I understand the need of projects like OO to provide binaries of some sort,
> I just don't understand why do they have to be 'blessed' by ASF. Once
> source gets built and packaged a whole new set of issues kick in. I don't
> think the fo
On 23/10/2014 brane wrote:
On 22.10.2014 03:02, Justin Mclean wrote:
You may possibly be forgetting about Category B licensed
dependancies. These may only be included in binary form in an
Apache product. ...
I have trouble visualising how any ASF project could have
/mandatory/ dependencies on a
below,
-Original Message-
From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman
Shaposhnik
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 21:37
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Convenience Binary Policy
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 5:57 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>
in-line.
-Original Message-
From: br...@apache.org [mailto:br...@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 01:47
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Convenience Binary Policy
On 22.10.2014 03:02, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Binary dependencies are, by def
I understand the resolution as follows:
Releases are for source only. The source can have a dependency on JBurg which
the user would download themselves if they are installing from source. I guess
we should include instructions to install from Source, so that’s an option for
users. But we’d inc
Hi,
> The easiest might be to host the Flex installer outside of Apache
> Flex, as a separate project where its contributors are free to do
> whatever.
I may be missing something here but I'm not sure that solves any issues. It's
not the installer than needed to be modified but what it what it w
Great!
I just created “flex-extras” and we’ll put in some appropriate text both on the
Github side and Apache Flex side. Hopefully this will prove to be a smooth
resolution.
Harbs
On Oct 23, 2014, at 1:22 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Harbs wrot
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Harbs wrote:
> ...What about a Github repository for “Flex Support” or “Flex Extensions”? We
> could build installers and
> host them there without “official blessings”
That's pretty much what I meant.
As for naming "Foo Extensions for Apache Flex" is
Here’s another idea along these lines:
What about a Github repository for “Flex Support” or “Flex Extensions”? We
could build installers and host them there without “official blessings”. Any
non Apache license compliant extensions (such as flexmojo) might go there as
well.
This might just be a
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Harbs wrote:
> JBurg can be installed manually by the end user, but the Flex community has
> tried to simplify
> the setup process by downloading JBurg by an installer script...
The easiest might be to host the Flex installer outside of Apache
Flex, as a se
Our situation is with JBurg.[1]
We have an ActionScript complier (called Falcon) which was donated along with
Flex by Adobe. The compilation has a dependency on JBurg to walk the tree.
One flavor of Flex (called FlexJS) is targeting Javascript and cross-compiling
ActionScript code to Javascript
On 22.10.2014 03:02, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Binary dependencies are, by definition, not released by the ASF; because
>> we release source code. Also, software that has dependencies that are
>> only available in binary form is not open-source, in my book.
> You may possibly be forgetting ab
This all sounds very good to me and makes a lot of sense.
As newcomers to Apache, Flex has had a lot of confusion over what “should” and
“must” be done regarding releases. If these things would be spelled out more
explicitly, it would help current and future Apache projects get it right with
mi
Hi,
On Thursday, October 23, 2014, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> ...I understand the need of projects like OO to provide binaries of some
sort,
> I just don't understand why do they have to be 'blessed' by ASF. Once
> source gets built and packaged a whole new set of issues kick in. I don't
> think
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 5:57 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:26 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>
>>> P.S.: Why anyone would think voting on binaries makes any kind of sense
>>> around here is, of course, a different question. I can't even begin to
>>> count the number of t
Hello, Harbs,
My two cents:
Regardless of policy, I don't see how it makes sense from a governance
perspective for individuals to take controversial independent action on
something so important as release publication. The mere fact that a dispute
exists should block such changes.
Can't the Flex
Thanks for the clarification!
I’m still not sure I understand. In plain English we seem to have these
unresolved questions:
1) (Re)compiling convenience packages with modifications to binary dependencies
after the release vote: Is that kosher or not?
2) If a binary dependency is added to a conv
Hi,
> Binary dependencies are, by definition, not released by the ASF; because
> we release source code. Also, software that has dependencies that are
> only available in binary form is not open-source, in my book.
You may possibly be forgetting about Category B licensed dependancies. These
may
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Harbs wrote:
> The one thing I see missing from the proposed text is dependencies and
> installers.
>
> Particularly this section:
>
> ### Compiled packages ### {#compiled-packages}
>
> The Apache Software Foundation produces open source software. All releases
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 6:43 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> At this point, unless someone not on the Flex PMC says that we can’t make
> the modifications,
I understand that your deadline is today, thus you are operating in emergency
mode and within what you have determined individually is within the bo
On 21.10.2014 15:55, Harbs wrote:
> The one thing I see missing from the proposed text is dependencies and
> installers.
>
> Particularly this section:
> ### Compiled packages ### {#compiled-packages}
>
> The Apache Software Foundation produces open source software. All releases
> are in the form
The one thing I see missing from the proposed text is dependencies and
installers.
Particularly this section:
### Compiled packages ### {#compiled-packages}
The Apache Software Foundation produces open source software. All releases
are in the form of the source materials needed to make changes t
On 10/21/14, 5:57 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>
>The problem is that we lack a concise policy document. That's where the
>"ASF
>release policy codification proposal" as worked through on legal-discuss
>a few
>months ago is supposed to help.
>
> http://s.apache.org/aGm
> https://github.com/r
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:26 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>> P.S.: Why anyone would think voting on binaries makes any kind of sense
>> around here is, of course, a different question. I can't even begin to
>> count the number of times it's been pointed out that binaries are not
>> Apache release
On 21 October 2014 07:26, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > On 21.10.2014 06:34, Alex Harui wrote:
> >> What is the piece I’m missing that says we have to vote to update the
> >> binary package?
> >
> > Apparently the Flex community believes that
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 21.10.2014 06:34, Alex Harui wrote:
>> What is the piece I’m missing that says we have to vote to update the
>> binary package?
>
> Apparently the Flex community believes that convenience binaries need
> votes. They don't, but aside from th
1 PM
>To: general@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Convenience Binary Policy
>
>Sorry, my last response crossed paths with this.
>
>We can and will make another release, but no, it was only 24 hours ago
>that we realized we might get a bump in installs from the talk on Tuesday
and intent ;-)
Having said that it's always good to clarify things.
-Original Message-
From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com]
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 9:41 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Convenience Binary Policy
Sorry, my last response crossed paths with
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> So I am looking for reasons why we can/can’t
> update a binary package in less time than the whole vote + mirrors latency.
>
I think you can. Just label it according to what it is. You can even
link from the web site.
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> >Then this is the Acme Software Foundation installer and you can do what
> >you
> >like.
> I suppose we could, but it wouldn’t be easily found by folks who arrive at
> flex.a.o looking for FlexJS. They’ll probably end up using the current
> In
On 21.10.2014 06:34, Alex Harui wrote:
> What is the piece I’m missing that says we have to vote to update the
> binary package?
Apparently the Flex community believes that convenience binaries need
votes. They don't, but aside from that, if you guys are already voting
on binary packages, it makes
, if you take the time to make a release nobody can veto it
>(although if there are good community reasons to not release you'd be
>expected to honor that).
>
>Ross
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com]
>Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 4:47
On 10/20/14, 5:54 PM, "Ted Dunning" wrote:
>
>Why not just roll your own installer that has these additional options?
>
>Then this is the Acme Software Foundation installer and you can do what
>you
>like.
I suppose we could, but it wouldn’t be easily found by folks who arrive at
flex.a.o lookin
incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Convenience Binary Policy
On 10/20/14, 4:13 PM, "Ted Dunning" wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>> I know we can’t go messing around with source packages without a
>>vote, but what about binary packages? Is
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> >If he wants to build his own installer, fine. If it says it is
> >downloading
> >an Apache artifact, it should be voted.
> The Installer has a DropDown list of releases, such as “Apache Flex SDK
> 4.13.0” and “Apache FlexJS 0.0.2”. What if t
On 10/20/14, 4:57 PM, "Ted Dunning" wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Justin Mclean
>wrote:
>
>> > 4) you aren't claiming that the artifact you created is an Apache
>>release
>> > and you are pointing some workshop participants at your release.
>>
>> My understanding is Alex does want t
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> > 4) you aren't claiming that the artifact you created is an Apache release
> > and you are pointing some workshop participants at your release.
>
> My understanding is Alex does want to use this as an official release and
> have the officia
Hi,
> 3) you created a correct distribution artifact and put it somewhere
> non-Apache
The modified binary has been placed in his Apache account [1] and AFAIK he
wants to move it to the official a.o/dist release area without a vote or
alternatively distribute it directly from there (to avoid wa
On 10/20/14, 4:13 PM, "Ted Dunning" wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>> I know we can’t go messing around with source packages without a vote,
>>but
>> what about binary packages? Is it against policy to do something like
>> this, and if so, can exceptions be made?
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> I know we can’t go messing around with source packages without a vote, but
> what about binary packages? Is it against policy to do something like
> this, and if so, can exceptions be made?
>
I may not have followed this quite correctly, here
Hi,
I’m wondering whether modifications to the set of bundled jars in a
convenience binary package can be made after release without voting.
And if not, I’m looking for any other quick-fix ideas for the following
scenario.
Flex has many different release packages. One is an SDK called FlexJS
0.
41 matches
Mail list logo
