There are many scripts. ApproveFlexJS.xml takes you through the steps required to approve a release. Installer.xml converts a binary release into an IDE-compatible folder structure.
In build.xml, there is an ‘all’ target that attempts to clone all the upstream repositories and build them in the correct order. Also in build.xml, the main target will detect that you are running from an IDE-compatible folder structure and prompt you for a new empty folder to use to clone all of the upstream repositories and build them in the correct order. I’m not quite sure I understand what scenario you are trying to resolve. Most folks trying to use FlexJS instead of Flex to build a web app should just be able to use the same Apache Flex Installer app most folks use to install Flex and will get all of the dependencies and folder structures required to use the results in Flash Builder and maybe IntelliJ. And use the same monkey-patch techniques to workaround bugs. The scripts target in build.xml are for those trying to work from our git repos to fix bugs and add features to FlexJS. Thanks, -Alex On 11/5/15, 3:47 PM, "jude" <flexcapaci...@gmail.com> wrote: >Ok, the reason why I was so confused is because it's "ApproveFlexJS" >build. >:P I thought it was the install and run script. Is there a another ant >build file? > >On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 3:21 PM, jude <flexcapaci...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Alex, >> I'm going to go ahead and put together an app so that you can install >> FlexJS with one click and compile. I want it to be as simple as possible >> for anyone (new web developers). I've downloaded the build script and >> looked over it but there is some code in it for voting and release. I'm >> sure you will be repeating yourself again but here's my requirements: >> >> • button to validate FlexJS requirements (paths, etc) >> • button to set paths for the user >> • one button to download FlexJS >> • another button to run FlexJS on a project app (without an IDE) >> >> Are there targets to do each of these (or where should I start)? Since >> it's an AIR app I want to run each target independently. BTW I'm >>bundling >> ant with the app so that the user doesn't have to install anything >>extra. >> If someone has FB or IntelliJ installed does the install directory need >>to >> change? I'll put the project on github or post it to the group as soon >>as >> it's usable. >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:32 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 11/5/15, 3:56 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >I’m a bit confused about the release process. >>> > >>> >I thought we were creating release branches in git for each release to >>> >“freeze” the code, so we do not have a wildly moving target. It does >>>not >>> >seem like that’s happening, so I’m not sure if I just misunderstood. >>> >>> You understand correctly. I’m cheating right now because it is just >>>more >>> work to set up release branches, and there isn’t a lot of non-critical >>> work going on the develop branch. Peter and I are working on the back >>> port from JS to AS in a separate branch. Only important fixes are >>>being >>> pushed to develop. If we had more folks contributing more often, then >>>I >>> would have used a release branch. >>> >>> Even release branches have historically moved because folks don’t start >>> testing until late in the game and find important bugs. >>> >>> -Alex >>> >>> > >>> >Harbs >>> > >>> >On Nov 3, 2015, at 12:04 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On 10/30/15, 3:19 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hmm, I was hoping more PMC folks would respond. Remember that, >>> >>>> according >>> >>>> to the release process, the PMC folks planning to vote are >>>supposed >>> to >>> >>>> be >>> >>>> running tests now. In theory, the only new test to be run after >>>we >>> >>>> start >>> >>>> the vote is whether the PGP signature is valid. >>> >>> >>> >>> We’re continually trying to test a moving target which involves a >>> >>>greater >>> >>> time commitment that I currently have available. You’ve never quite >>> >>>sure >>> >>> if the version you testing is going to be the version in the >>>release >>> >>> candidate and unless you very carefully follow all of the commits >>>it’s >>> >>> not obvious what needs to be retested at two different time >>>intervals. >>> >> >>> >> Hmm, pleading is working so maybe I’ll try guilt-tripping. >>> >> >>> >> Yes, the nightly builds are a moving target. IMO, we all want to >>>grow >>> >>the >>> >> community by attracting customers and hopefully convert a few to be >>> >> committers and the only way I know to do it is to keep making the >>>code >>> >> better and releasing the best release we can in the most efficient >>> >>manner. >>> >> IMO, freezing a branch and not allowing important bug fixes that >>>might >>> >> make a difference in whether someone becomes more active in our >>> >>community >>> >> doesn’t make sense. Taking the time to build out an RC and post it >>>and >>> >> start a vote thread in order to finally get some testing isn’t very >>> >> efficient either. >>> >> >>> >> Historically, when we produced an RC and immediately started a >>>release >>> >> vote, bugs would be found and we’d cancel the RC and roll out >>>another >>> >>one. >>> >> The goal of the release process we voted in, IMO, was to reduce this >>> >> overhead of posting RCs, opening and closing vote threads, etc. so >>>we >>> >>can >>> >> more efficiently achieve the goal of serving our customers and >>> >>attracting >>> >> some of them to becoming committers so we can have more people find >>> bugs >>> >> sooner by working with the develop branch. >>> >> >>> >> Recently, I’ve spent several days on improving build and approval >>> >>scripts >>> >> so testing what is in development takes less time. In theory, you >>>can >>> >>now >>> >> start up the approval script which will pull down the bits, answer a >>> few >>> >> questions, then go do something else for 5 to 25 minutes and then >>>come >>> >> back and poke at it. I would have rather spent that time on >>>features >>> >>for >>> >> our customers, but I gambled that this would help us get the release >>> out >>> >> sooner. I’m not sure that paid off. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> I don’t have any other ideas on how to make it easier for those of >>>you >>> >>who >>> >> contribute in your spare time to stay up on the commits and bugs. >>>It >>> >> should be ok to take any nightly build and run it through your tests >>> and >>> >> report your findings. Ideally, you would be up to date on the >>>commits >>> >>and >>> >> bugs and other discussions to know whether what you find is a >>>duplicate >>> >>or >>> >> not, but at this point, I don’t care if you report a duplicate. At >>> >>least >>> >> that means you verified a bunch of other code paths worked for you. >>> I >>> >> don’t know how other Apache projects with really active code bases >>>do >>> >>it. >>> >> >>> >> It is certainly fine to be too busy to vote on a release. I was >>>hoping >>> >>to >>> >> get more folks to poke at the bits before starting a vote because it >>> >>will >>> >> be a waste of community energy to start a vote and then have a >>>bunch of >>> >> PMC voters jump in and start reporting important bugs. But I think >>>the >>> >> community has waited too long already, so I am going to start a vote >>> >>soon, >>> >> and Peter and I will vote and maybe Josh and/or Harbs and we’ll be >>>good >>> >>to >>> >> go. Hopefully any others jumping in late won’t find release >>>blockers >>> >>and >>> >> we’ll just make another release later. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -Alex >>> > >>> >>> >>
