Hi, could someone post here the links to post in downloads page for now?
Thanks! 2017-11-10 23:57 GMT+01:00 Dave Fisher <[email protected]>: > +1. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Nov 10, 2017, at 2:01 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > I think it is okay for us to have a 'Nightly builds' section on our > website > > like these projects: > > > > http://jmeter.apache.org/nightly.html > > https://wiki.apache.org/solr/NightlyBuilds > > https://ant.apache.org/nightlies.html > > https://poi.apache.org/download.html#nightly > > https://lucene.apache.org/core/developer.html > > > > Of course, we need to say in big bold letters that these builds should > not > > be used in production, and that they are not supported by the Apache > Royale > > team. They are there only for testing purposes and that they can discuss > > issues found in nightly builds in the [email protected] list. > > > > Just my 2 cents. > > > > Thanks, > > Om > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Piotr Zarzycki < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> I think that is the solution for nightly builds. We should state on the > >> website that we can provide Nightly Builds when someone ask on dev, > users. > >> Can it be ok ? I like such idea. > >> > >> I agree with you Alex that we should wait for the release for your > >> refactoring, but we need to have statement above as fast as we can, > cause > >> there from time to time is asking where I can find artifacts. > >> > >> Piotr > >> > >> > >> 2017-11-10 20:12 GMT+01:00 Dave Fisher <[email protected]>: > >> > >>> Hi - > >>> > >>> I agree it is intent and trust. A couple of incidents in the long > history > >>> of POI. > >>> > >>> (1) we discovered a GPL file that had been in the source tree for a > >> couple > >>> of releases and removed it. > >>> > >>> (2) we had a complaint from the copyright holder that a test file > >> belonged > >>> to him. It had been there for many years. We removed it from the next > >>> release. > >>> > >>> Anyone concerned with nit picking this should be watching every commit. > >> In > >>> the Incubator a mentor will bring it up then and most often say next > >> time. > >>> Here in a project we deal as they come and it should be on the commit. > >>> > >>> If someone brings in a significant amount of code then a SGA may be > >> needed > >>> along with IP Clearance in the Incubator. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Dave > >>> > >>> Sent from my iPhone > >>> > >>>> On Nov 10, 2017, at 11:02 AM, Alex Harui <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Dave, > >>>> > >>>> It would help to make license problems rare if we also do something > >> else > >>>> Roy has mentioned recently that has to do with trust and intent. If > >> you > >>>> dig hard enough, or take an "untrusting" philosophy that if something > >>>> isn't perfectly documented that someone is going to use that > >> imperfection > >>>> against you or the foundation, you can continue to find small > licensing > >>>> issues, especially in the third party artifacts we consume. > >>>> > >>>> Roy basically said that folks want us to use the stuff the make > >> available > >>>> on open source sites otherwise they wouldn't have put it there. They > >>>> might have slightly different rules about sharing it and modifications > >> to > >>>> it, but the intent is to share it. > >>>> > >>>> So let me add to "better and not illegal" with "trust". > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> -Alex > >>>> > >>>>> On 11/10/17, 10:47 AM, "Dave Fisher" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi - > >>>>> > >>>>> For source code we can point to github from the website. > >>>>> > >>>>> For nightly builds we can let people know about it on dev@ but > should > >>> not > >>>>> link to it from the website. We can explain on the website or wiki > >> that > >>>>> we are doing nightly builds and that they can find out from the dev@ > >>> list. > >>>>> > >>>>> At this point it should be rare to have a license problem in the > >>>>> repository because we all should know the rules or how to ask on dev@ > >>> or > >>>>> private@ first. > >>>>> > >>>>> Clear? > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> Dave > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Sent from my iPhone > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Nov 10, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Alex Harui <[email protected]> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Forking this specific issue about nightly builds... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> AIUI, this issue about nightly builds has arisen before with other > >>>>>> projects. I'd have to go through board@/member@ archives but I > >> think > >>>>>> some > >>>>>> projects have found some pretty clever solutions to linking to > >> nightly > >>>>>> builds. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That said, one of the benefits of creating a Royale project separate > >>>>>> from > >>>>>> Flex is that there should not be any 'competition' in the release > >>> queue. > >>>>>> For example, the Flex project is currently trying to get two > releases > >>>>>> out, > >>>>>> and if some other Flex member wanted to rush out a BlazeDS release, > >>>>>> they'd > >>>>>> probably have to wait. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Royale has 3 main repos, and under FlexJS/Falcon, we created 2 sets > >> of > >>>>>> release artifacts. Royale might still have 2 sets of release > >> artifacts > >>>>>> ( > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Piotr Zarzycki > >> > >> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki > >> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>* > >> > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
