Ah yes, good catch. On 12/3/15, 12:12 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>It looks like you accidentally referenced FlexJS 0.0.2 instead of 0.5.0. > >- Josh > >On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> Here's a draft of the board report. Can someone provide new analytics? >> Anything else to add? >> >> Thanks, >> -Alex >> >> -------- Draft ----------- >> >> Apache Flex is an application framework for easily building Flash-based >> applications for mobile devices, the browser and desktop. >> >> RELEASES >> -Apache FlexJS 0.0.2 was released on 11/14/15. >> -Apache Flex FalconJX 0.0.2 was released on 11/14/15. >> -Apache Flex BlazeDS 4.7.2 was released on 11/16/15. >> >> -Apache Flex SDK 4.14.1 was released on 3/30/15. >> -Apache Flex Tour De Flex Component Explorer 1.2 was released on >>11/28/14. >> -Apache Flex Tool API 1.0.0 was released on 11/20/14 >> -Apache Flex Squiggly 1.1 was released on 10/26/14 >> -Apache Flex Installer 3.2.0 was released on 6/23/15. >> >> >> >> ACTIVITY >> The past three months saw continued activity related to FlexJS, a >>version >> of Flex that is independent from the Adobe Flash Platform. After the >> release in mid-November, mailing list activity related to FlexJS feels >> like it has reached new heights with new names posting. Another >>security >> issue was discovered in the BlazeDS 4.7.1 release resulting in the Blaze >> 4.7.2 release. Meanwhile, a release manager has volunteered to release >> Apache Flex SDK 4.15.0 and there is activity around bug fixes to that >> code. Work on Maven integration continues. Mailing list traffic is >>down, >> but not an issue yet. >> >> At some point in time, a change to the CMS was made and when we updated >> our website with news of the FlexJS release, those changes affected the >> output from the mirrors.cgi and broke our installer. I was able to >>find a >> workaround and we'll have to eventually ship a new Installer release >>that >> uses JSON output from the cgi. >> >> 3 PMC members presented a Flex track at ApacheCon EU and discussion are >> underway for ApacheCon NA. >> >> CODE ADOPTION >> Based on threads on general@incubator and legal-discuss, we are now >> discussing the notion of adopting non-ASF code bases that are already >> licensed under ALv2. One code base is Swiz which was approved for >> donation by vote over two year ago and reported in prior board reports >>but >> was never completed probably because the donor was having trouble >>tracking >> everyone down who needed to sign the Software Grant. The other is >> AS3Commons, which is currently under discussion leading to a vote. >> >> The understanding we have is that a Software Grant is not needed to >>accept >> these code bases since they are under ALv2. We will contact the major >> contributors from each code base to make sure there aren't conflicts or >> other objections to have Apache Flex adopt this code. There is no >> community around these code bases right now as the major contributors >>have >> moved on to other projects so we will accept responses from the major >> contributors as speaking for the community. >> >> COMMUNITY >> -Josh Tynjala was added as a PMC member. >> -A discussion is underway about a new committer. >> -Latest analytics include a little less than 2000 hits per day on the >> website during the work week (less on weekends). >> -There were more than 12,500 installs of Apache Flex 4.14.1 since its >> release about two months ago. >> -Almost 75,000 people have run the Tour De Flex application. Tour De >>Flex >> is a set of examples folks use to learn how to develop Flex >>applications. >> >> TRADEMARKS >> -The apacheflex.com site we reported in the prior two reports seems to >>be >> gone. We never received any response to our request other than the site >> finally going away. >> -A PMC member reported that a company is promoting a software product >> called Flex that appears to be related to themes/styles for website >> visuals. I used their contact page to deliver the standard trademark >> violation template just before writing up this report so they haven't >>had >> a chance to respond. >> >> >> >>
