How about: "ask the third parties?" They must have an opinion on the "blocking" status of this issue ...
EdB On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > On 11/6/14, 4:06 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >> Seems like if we drop 3rd-party support, we should remove 3rdparty.xml > >> from the source package and update the RELEASE_NOTES. > > > >-1 to that we would have to revert about a dozen fixes (via cherry > >picking) to remove 3rd party example support for Tour De Flex. > > I think removing 3rdparty.xml and updating the RELEASE_NOTES would be > sufficient. > > > > >> To say in the RELEASE_NOTES that there is support and then not support > >>it on the > >> flex.a.o version doesn’t feel right to me. > > > >It does support it we just not showing any 3rd party examples in the > >public Tour De Flex web site. I was trying to make a compromise to get > >the release out the door, but seems fairly clear that is not possible. > > > >> Or at minimum, mention in RELEASE_NOTES that 3rd-party support isn’t > >>fully implemented. > > > >This sounds like bike shedding to me. > > IMO, suggesting the documentation of a known defect in the RELEASE_NOTES > does not turn this discussion into a “bike shed” topic. I think that’s > one of the things RELEASE_NOTES are for. > > > > >> In the “no RC” process we’re practicing, there is no new RC to cut and > >> upload to dist, or VOTE to cancel until this discussion reaches the > >>point > >> where it is pretty clear there are enough PMC votes to ship. > > > >Which currently seem impossible so at this point I think I'm just going > >to give up on releasing it. Sorry to the 15,000 + users who use this and > >the 3rd party contributors who were waiting on the new release. > > > >The whole point of the release process is not to have consensus of the > >entire PMC, but to only have enough people who will vote +1, following > >this new no RC process I can't see how this point can be reached. > > > >Currently we have PMC members who are effectively blocking the release or > >a vote on it but are unwilling to help out in fixing with they see as > >issues. If we have these issues on a simple release like this I can't > >imagine this process working for the installer or the SDK. > > We haven’t heard from folks who thought it was a minor issue before my > report on the root cause, so maybe we should confirm their thoughts. > Plus, we now have more options for them to consider. IMO, the several > options are: > > 1) Ship the current source without documenting a known defect, which is > that third party content may not position and size correctly, and/or > despite the RELEASE_NOTES mentioning 3rd party support, there won’t be 3rd > party examples on the flex.a.o TDF site. > 2) Document the known defect > 3) Remove/hide the 3rd party feature and remove its mention from the > RELEASE_NOTES and JIRA. > 3) Wait a bit longer and decide on how to properly load 3rd party SWFs > then implement it > 4) Change the implementation to link to 3rd party sites instead of loading > their SWFs. > > IMO, shipping a known defect without documenting it will cost the > community more time in answering questions about why it isn’t sizing and > positioning correctly, and why there aren’t any 3rd party examples on the > flex.a.o version of TDF than it will to change the RELEASE_NOTES and an > XML file before we vote. And I don’t see any major hurry to ship TDF 1.2, > so I’m also content to wait and engage the 3rd party contributors and > decide on a proper strategy for loading their content. > > -Alex > > -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
