Hi Alex, the difference is that the externs will change, the "tiny parts" of Falcon will probably never change. That's why I would simply like to fire them out the door and only think about them if we really need to change something.
Chris -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 15. Juli 2016 21:20 An: dev@flex.apache.org Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [Falcon] What would be needed in order to release two tiny parts of Falcon? On 7/15/16, 11:38 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: >Hi Alex, > > >In order to do a proper Maven release, there cannot be any SNAPSHOT >dependencies in it. Currently we have these two snapshot versions in >there. By releasing the artifacts in version 1.0.0 and leaving it this >way, the road is clear to do a release of falcon. The other thing I >would like to have done before triggering the release would be to >detach the externs. I would like to have them in a separate repo for that. > I don't think there were any objections to getting a new repo for the externs, so please ask Infra for it. I'm still not sure it is worth the cost of renaming the flex-asjs and flex-falcon repos. If we do get a separate repo for externs, would we want to have it be a separate release (with LICENSE, NOTICE, README)? The repo needs to have LICENSE and NOTICE anyway. We don't have to have it be a separate release, we bundle flex-tlf with flex-sdk already. And then, if we are going to do all of that work for the externs, should you ask for a repo for these tiny parts of Falcon and go through the hassle of LICENSE, NOTICE, README for them? I'm really not sure where to draw the line. Thoughts? -Alex
