On 12/18/13 2:12 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi, > >> Doing #1 appears to be the least work, but if you are going to veto the >> release then I need to find some other configuration that will make you >> happy. > >Releases can't be vetoed. They require 3+1's and more +1 than -1's. But >the PMC does have a responsibility to the board that the release is >correct. Yes you are right at releases can't be vetoed, but I'm only anticipating votes from you, Maurice and Om, so a couple of -1's is effectively a veto. >Perhaps consider if this was an incubating release do you think it be >passed by the IPMC? Not RC2 as it is, but I'm trying to collect your thoughts on what we need to do in RC3. No sense in me taking a guess only to have you guys immediately reject it. Right now, I'm thinking of: 1) adding a pixelbender.xml file with a main target that does the compile, a clean target that deletes the PBJ and a copy target that copies the PBJs into place in the sdk tree. 2) add more to the release notes that point you to this xml file 3) Separate NOTICE 4) tagging flex-sdk repo 5) Add git location to README (actually describe how this is a subset of flex-sdk) You'll still use release-pixelbender from the main build.xml to create the package. Thoughts? -Alex
