Hi Piotr thanks, just changed the links to the ones you provide me and increase font size in message box. :)
2017-11-12 18:42 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki <[email protected]>: > Hi Carlos, > > Here you go links to Royale. I see proper names. Royale [1] JS Only [2]. I > did just quick look and when I came to the website I started to search this > information that Nightly is not for production. After w while I have found > this red rectangle. I think font size could be a bit bigger there. > > [1] > http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/royale- > asjs/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/out/ > [2] > http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/royale-asjs-jsonly/ > lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/out/ > > Piotr > > > > 2017-11-12 18:30 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <[email protected]>: > > > Hi, > > > > here's the download page for you to review. > > > > http://royale.codeoscopic.com/download/ > > > > Some things to mention: > > > > * As we already don't have release binaries, the first section could be > > consider under construction > > * For nightly builds I use the links posted by Alex in October. I think > > those links are somewhat temporal since are labeled in "FlexJS" instead > of > > "RoyaleJS" or something and he mentions the to rename in the future. > > > > You can check if links are the expected, or we need to put something > more. > > > > Take into account that the info is what I found navigating through the > > mailing list and since I'm not a user of that links, although we will > need > > to update as we get final names, they can be wrong links at this time. > > > > Hope you guys could let me know what is right and wrong > > > > Thanks > > > > Carlos > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-11-11 11:35 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <[email protected]>: > > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > as in lots of things in life I think we should get to some point in the > > > middle. I think it would be bad if we try to make lots of components in > > few > > > time, since as you said, we don't know what things people will need > > > nowadays. I like your point about "we don't need to mimic Flex 4.x", > for > > > example, a cool Date component should work seamlessly in mobile and > > > desktop, so better to create a royale one than try to get Flex 4 > > > DateChooser and DateSpinner, since we have in flex both due to the way > > Flex > > > was evolving through the years. They worked great for the web and > > desktop, > > > but suddenly a new mobile world emerge and they must respect the old > way > > to > > > do things. > > > > > > In the other hand, I think it would be very bad for us to left things > > > completely to users demand. We know right now that some components are > > > needed and we can propose others as well. > > > > > > I think I'll better create a new thread since I think this one was more > > > about releases and nightly builds so we can stay on focus > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-11-11 8:04 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <[email protected]>: > > > > > >> Well, I would love to be wrong about "few years", but I know I > wouldn't > > >> bet any money on knowing what components and features our users who > are > > >> migrating from Flex are going to need. And I would hope we don't have > > to > > >> say to any users "well, we don't have that component/feature so too > > bad", > > >> unless it is a really extensive and expensive component that we don't > > have > > >> the committer-power to reproduce. Maybe we do have the ability to > > gather > > >> that list of components/features up front, but I am expecting that we > > are > > >> going to have to be demand-driven. Whoever signs up to migrate to > > Royale > > >> will have my priority just like Harbs and Yishay did. I did not ask > > them > > >> to commit up front to what they needed, they started migrating and > asked > > >> for stuff and we made it happen. I expect it to be like that for at > > least > > >> a few years, and we need to be able to make releases quickly in order > to > > >> respond to those users. > > >> > > >> I'm hopeful that as we gain users, we will also have more automated > > tests > > >> and that's how we are going to try to prevent breaking people's apps, > > but > > >> I think we will be spending at least a few years bringing new > components > > >> and features to Royale and need to get that stuff out to users as > > quickly > > >> as possible. If you think about the number of person-hours invested > in > > >> the writing and testing and documenting of Apache Flex and its third > > party > > >> components, and compare that to the time Peter and I have spent on > > Royale > > >> (subtract out what we've spent on Flex and non-FlexJS work) plus Harbs > > and > > >> Yishay (subtract out the time they spent on their actual app) and > others > > >> like Om, Erik, Carlos and Piotr, it looks to me that there is still > > plenty > > >> of work to be done, and the only way to decide what order to do things > > is > > >> to do what users ask us for. > > >> > > >> I know you want a clear list of controls/components for a theme, but I > > >> don't know how we will decide other than, say, taking the ones > actually > > >> used by Harbs and adding any other component wanted by the next folks > > that > > >> sign up for migration. > > >> > > >> My philosophy is to not set expectations too high (that Royale will be > > >> like Flex 4.x) and failing to meet those expectations. If we make a > lot > > >> of noise soon, what kinds of people will that bring, and what will > make > > >> them stay? If we can attract more pioneers like our current > committers > > >> who are willing to help blaze the trail, great, let's go get them. If > > it > > >> is going to bring in folks who are expecting Royale to be like Flex, > I'm > > >> not sure we are there yet. I think this latter group is going to want > > to > > >> know about success stories from other people, so IMO, the most > important > > >> thing is that we need to make a few more users successful in their > > >> migration. But those next users are going to have to be willing to > put > > up > > >> with bugs and missing features, so we need to set their expectations > > >> appropriately. > > >> > > >> My 2 cents, > > >> -Alex > > >> > > >> On 11/10/17, 11:47 AM, "[email protected] on behalf of Carlos > > >> Rovira" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected] > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> >Hi, > > >> > > > >> >I agree with this, but want to expose some thoughts that I consider > > >> >important: > > >> > > > >> >I think we must to cut a release as we get in the same similar stable > > >> >state > > >> >as we had in FlexJS (0.8.0), and call it 0.8.0, since this is only a > > >> >transition release to get in our new house, but we still have some > > >> missing > > >> >key pieces to get 0.9.0 and 1.0 > > >> > > > >> >I suppose a Alex talks about "some years" but I don't think so. If we > > do > > >> >0.9 and 1.0 in the right way, I expect to make huge noise on the > > internet > > >> >talking about Apache Royale and making lots of people put an eye on > us. > > >> >This must be at proper time to get people reaching to us not leave > > easily > > >> >and take us seriously as a real alternative. > > >> > > > >> >How many time to get this? I hope more soon than later. Maybe 1T > 2018? > > >> 2T? > > >> >People coming at that time will start to use Royale and we will need > > some > > >> >coherence all around. > > >> > > > >> >That's crucial and that will make us not easy to make certain changes > > >> that > > >> >could make user developments not valid. > > >> > > > >> >So, for example, We still does not have a clear list of starter UI > > >> >components and controls. I think we will need to discuss that and > work > > >> for > > >> >it so people could rely on some quality components (I think I will > > create > > >> >a > > >> >thread about this concrete part since I think is crucial for us). We > > will > > >> >need to have certain parts of Royale very robust and defined so > people > > >> >could come and expect and easy relation with that parts and avoid to > > left > > >> >because they think we "many things" but as well "many of that things > > are > > >> >not finished" in a quality level similar to the quality level reached > > on > > >> >apache flex. > > >> > > > >> >So, going back. We need to cut a release as soon as we can to get a > > valid > > >> >starter point, we need to release the new website with quality > content > > >> and > > >> >what we could have soon (if we have royale on NPM, that's good!, and > so > > >> >on....), we can put a download page with releases and talk about ways > > for > > >> >people to get nightly builds, but we must think in the people that > will > > >> >come to us and what they expect to see; > > >> > > > >> >For me: something clear, as easy as possible info in website, an sdk > > with > > >> >proven valid ways to make apps and a concrete set of UI controls and > > >> >components that works really well to start building the same day they > > >> know > > >> >about Apache Royale. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >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 > > >> >> >>> ( > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >-- > > >> >Carlos Rovira > > >> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A% > > >> 2F%2Fabout.me%2 > > >> >Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7C%7C4ddfd5d3bb8e44f9b4c508d5287 > > >> 3f24b%7Cfa7b1b5 > > >> >a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636459400811686261&sdat > > >> a=AONFxld%2FTJz > > >> >zDM%2Frjf0g6L8PfwqlpJHkF9RVZII1TWo%3D&reserved=0 > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Carlos Rovira > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Carlos Rovira > > http://about.me/carlosrovira > > > > > > -- > > Piotr Zarzycki > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>* > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
