Thanks Shane. When we were discussing this earlier, we were discussing two IDE-friendly release artifacts, one designed for folks migrating from Apache Flex and another for folks not interested in SWF. In the packaging branch I have most of that working.
We were discussing calling the migration package 'FlexJS' and the other one Royale or RoyaleJS. The latter is considered by some folks to mean "Royale for JS". The package names would be apache-royale-flexjs-<version> and maybe apache-royale-royalejs-<version>. The project name would definitely be Royale but I think we want to have artifacts that denote target markets. All of this is open for discussion though, and this seems like a good thread to do it. What do folks think now about packaging for Royale? -Alex On 9/28/17, 3:35 AM, "Shane Curcuru" <[email protected]> wrote: >The ASF has a policy for general branding: > > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apach >e.org%2Ffoundation%2Fmarks%2Fpmcs%23websites&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cedd057a4a42 >847e959fe08d5065cad24%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364219 >17474660773&sdata=QjdHqPRyGngaXYHGuez7dmon%2B8odYJ6GwcUmrmrVuls%3D&reserve >d=0 > >And a guide for how others should refer to Apache products and projects >(mainly focused at various companies who try to abuse our brands): > > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apach >e.org%2Ffoundation%2Fmarks%2Fguide&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cedd057a4a42847e959fe0 >8d5065cad24%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63642191747466077 >3&sdata=NUz6GZUuV2IhjiACTNF4yY%2F36p3hOzwiD7IVtRnJbwo%3D&reserved=0 > >So in general the primary brand for the product as a whole would be >Apache Royale™. > >-- > >- Shane > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apach >e.org%2Ffoundation%2Fmarks%2Fresources&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cedd057a4a42847e95 >9fe08d5065cad24%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364219174746 >60773&sdata=rqBk8aBNik9QBYT7eLeQfjAtb%2BiMmGVU28pSjUeaQrE%3D&reserved=0
