I have wired a build from Tuesday into the Installer as the “FlexJS Nightly Build”. You have to right-click and select “Show Dev Builds” to see it in the list. I will update those builds on occasion but not always “nightly”. Please try it and see if all of the externs stuff got in there, and the latest FDB, and if it still works in IJ.
Still no word from the MSDN folks so the CI server is still asleep. What form did others use to apply for Apache MSDN? Maybe I’m using the wrong form. -Alex On 7/29/15, 3:37 PM, "Michael Schmalle" <teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote: >Alex, you know I was being sarcastic. :) I agree with showing things that >work. BUT I am hearing stories of "pioneers" that want to try it right now >and one, have know idea what it is or how to start, two, don't know where >to start and three, ask people like me that is a developer and I have to >tell them I don't even know how to get a nightly right now. > >So... I guess it would be nice, just to get something in a stable release >so we have STEP ONE, I know Carlos wants step 10 but we have to get to >step >one right now or else it's going to fail. > >Mike > >On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 7/29/15, 3:24 PM, "Michael Schmalle" <teotigraphix...@gmail.com> >>wrote: >> >> >On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 6:02 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala >> ><bigosma...@gmail.com> >> >wrote: >> > >> >> +1 for a release of FlexJS. It would be great to highlight and talk >> >>about >> >> the new version of FlexJS at ApacheCon Europe on Oct 1st, 2015. >> >> >> >> I have been talking to various folks (outside of Apache) about >>FlexJS. >> >>One >> >> feedback I've received is that the version number of 0.02 makes folks >> >>think >> >> that it is not ready to be taken seriously. It is hard to convince >> >>folks >> >> to start using it if it has an 'alpha only' sheen to it. I really >>think >> >> that the next version should be at a 1.0 release. Even if it is not >> >> perfect, the FlexJS already has a lot of strong things going for it. >> I >> >> don't think we should keep it under the covers anymore, i.e. keeping >>it >> >>at >> >> a sub 1.0 release version. >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> > >> >Or at least 0.5 or 1.0 alpha. :) I know there are 1000's of hours into >>the >> >compiler/transpiler/eternc side so having it at 0.0.2 really sucks. >> > >> >I know what Carlos is saying but the damn thing need to just have a >> >release, then release again, and again adding things. This isn't a >>fashion >> >show where you get one walk down the ile, it's iterative. Haha >> >> My philosophy is to set expectations low and exceed them. Once I hear >> that folks on this list are actually building things that work with >>FlexJS >> then I’d say we are ready to tell more folks about it by giving it a 1.0 >> version. My goal after this release is to try to get something useful >> running. I’m sort of leaning toward this still being 0.0.3 and then >> trying to get that something running and call it 0.5 or 0.9 and then if >> someone else is successful that can be 1.0. >> >> I am going to spend a bit of time this week on some polish and trying to >> make the Windows side work better out of the box but yes, it should be >> more iterative than once a year going forward. >> >> -Alex >> >>
