Well, Peter found an issue with the install script so hold off before having others try it.
-Alex On 7/30/15, 6:25 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >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 >>> >>> >
