Hi Piotr, I removed that part, please, check. As well I sent you private for access info
thanks 2017-11-13 13:21 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>: > That's what I think so. > > I was trying to also login into account, but when I'm going to admin page > it doesn't ask me for a new password, but rather redirect me to the login > page. I tried to reset password, but it didn't help. > > Piotr > > > 2017-11-13 13:11 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com>: > > > Hi Piotr, > > > > I'm fine with the decisions you would like to take regarding that links. > I > > just setup an initial layout. > > > > So, if I understand well I must to remove only the status link? > > > > > > > > 2017-11-13 12:42 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>: > > > > > Carlos, > > > > > > I'm not convinced that we should move framework build from Alex's Azure > > PC. > > > It is really convenient if something went wrong to just connect with > the > > > PC. If you would like to have distribution build under Apache umbrella > > you > > > will need to fight with Infra about that. Maven is building on Apache > > > servers, Chris handle that. I would rather not invest the time in that > > > since we have working everything on Alex PC, but that's just mine > > > convenient and save time view. :) > > > > > > Piotr > > > > > > > > > 2017-11-13 12:36 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > Hi Piotr, > > > > > > > > ok, as we are still in preview site, not published, I think is better > > to > > > > wait for the final link. > > > > One thing is confusing me is that status link is more legit ( > > > > builds.apache.org) than the nightly links ( > > apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net) > > > > > > > > I think in a final stage we should not have "apacheflexbuild" right? > > > > But status seems ok to me at first sight > > > > > > > > thanks > > > > > > > > 2017-11-12 20:04 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com > >: > > > > > > > > > Another thing is: "Apache Royale Jenkings Job Status" - This status > > > > showing > > > > > the state of Maven build which is hosted on builds.apache.org. > Since > > > we > > > > > are > > > > > using Alex's machine for producing ditribution package for > developers > > > we > > > > > should not have it this link on the website. > > > > > > > > > > Maven is able to build distribution package, but so far it's > missing > > > some > > > > > things and you can use that package only for code completion > purposes > > > in > > > > > your IDE either Moonshine or VSCode. If I find resources I hope I > > will > > > > fix > > > > > it and we can then linking to Maven build. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Carslo for that website! :) > > > > > Piotr > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-11-12 18:42 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki < > piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > 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 < > carlosrov...@apache.org > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > >> 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 < > carlosrov...@apache.org > > >: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > 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 <aha...@adobe.com.invalid > > >: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> 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, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of > > > > Carlos > > > > > >> >> Rovira" <carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of > > > > > carlosrov...@apache.org> > > > > > >> >> 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 < > dave2w...@comcast.net > > >: > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> 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 > > > > > <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> 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" < > > > dave2w...@comcast.net> > > > > > >> 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 > > > > > >> <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> 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>* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Piotr Zarzycki > > > > > > > > > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki > > > > > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Carlos Rovira > > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Piotr Zarzycki > > > > > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki > > > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>* > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > <http://www.codeoscopic.com> > > > > Carlos Rovira > > > > Director General > > > > M: +34 607 22 60 05 > > > > http://www.codeoscopic.com > > > > > > Conócenos en 1 minuto! <https://avant2.es/#video> > > > > > > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener > > información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este mensaje por > > error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía > y > > proceda a su destrucción. > > > > De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999), le > comunicamos > > que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable es CODEOSCOPIC > > S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la prestación del > > servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted derecho de acceso, > > rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos dirigiéndose a > nuestras > > oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la documentación > > necesaria. > > > > > > -- > > Piotr Zarzycki > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>* > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
