Hi Guys,
I have one small change, not related with any issue. I would like to make
some methods protected in Jewel AlertView - Anyone would be against it ? I
will push the changes, but I wanted to let you know that I can revert it at
any time.
Thanks,
Piotr
pon., 23 sie 2021 o 23:04 Greg Dove <greg.d...@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> Sorry I should have followed up here yesterday.
>
> Thanks for confirming that Yishay.
>
> I pushed changes via dev to the 3 repos yesterday.
>
> I don't really know the release workflow, but I think (after my attempts to
> get familiar with it) that this is the way to fix the things that I raised.
> Can someone who does understand the release workflow please take a quick
> look at my last commits to see if there is anything else I missed. I tried
> to run the 'release' target locally to test it but I am not currently set
> up for the checkin-tests with the geckodriver or whatever it is. So I
> *think* it should be ok, but I was not able to fully test it.
>
> Thanks,
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 2:11 AM Yishay Weiss <yish...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > In the past we used to make changes to release and merge those into dev
> > after releasing. This has the benefit of protecting the release from
> > untested changes in dev and theoretically saving some time as some of the
> > previous release steps can be re-used.
> >
> > Since there hasn't been a lot of activity on dev since RC6, there's not
> > significant risk in simply creating another RC from dev. It would be
> easier
> > for me to follow the usual steps rather than figure out which steps are
> > needed. So I say commit your changes to dev, and I'll cut an RC7 from
> that.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > On 2021/08/22 02:23:54, Greg Dove <greg.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I have made changes locally which I believe address the things I was
> > > concerned about. Can someone please advise : should these changes be
> > pushed
> > > to the 0.9.8 release branch or to develop? I think it is supposed to be
> > the
> > > release branch, and they will later be merged back to develop, but I
> just
> > > want to verify that before I do anything.
> > > I should be able to push these tonight once I can be sure which branch
> I
> > > should commit them to.
> > >
> > > The changes do the following:
> > >
> > > -For 3 zero-byte font (.ser files) and 1 binary vector image file
> > > (.afdesign in
> frameworks\themes\JewelTheme\src\main\resources\afdesign) -
> > > exclude these from RAT reporting in the ApproveRoyale script - remove
> > > unnecessary noise
> > > -Include compiler's RELEASE_NOTES.md in release staging
> > > -update top level RELEASE_NOTES to include a 0.9.8 section (summary of
> > asjs
> > > and compiler changes)
> > > -update royale-typedefs RELEASE_NOTES to include a 0.9.8 section ('no
> > major
> > > changes')
> > > -minor changes to asjs RELEASE_NOTES and compiler RELEASE_NOTES (one
> > > addition to compiler, mostly fixing spelling errors/typos for the
> > remainder)
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Greg
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 12:21 AM Piotr Zarzycki <
> > piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Josh,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for explanation. My expectation was just that if I run
> approval
> > > > script with switch for JS only tests - I would get JS only binaries
> > after
> > > > final build. - This is not a blocker but everyone need to be aware
> > that
> > > > build producing JS-SWF version.
> > > >
> > > > wt., 17 sie 2021 o 18:46 Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev>
> > > > napisał(a):
> > > >
> > > > > In your screenshot, the left side looks like a JS-only distribution
> > > > (except
> > > > > for the extra player and air directories that are there, for some
> > reason)
> > > > > because frameworks/libs contains KeepsFBFromHanging.swc, while the
> > right
> > > > > side looks like a JS+SWF distribution with all of the framework
> SWCs.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's worth mentioning that a freshly downloaded JS+SWF binary
> > > > distribution
> > > > > is not currently supposed to contain playerglobal.swc, and you are
> > > > expected
> > > > > to add it manually (or another tool like Moonshine would do that).
> > It's
> > > > > quite possible that the ApproveRoyale script doesn't do that for
> > you, and
> > > > > you still need to do it manually.
> > > > >
> > > > > Technically, we are able to build a playerglobal.swc/airglobal.swc
> > from
> > > > the
> > > > > asdoc XML using the playerglobalc tool I created, but that is not
> yet
> > > > > included in our distribution.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Josh Tynjala
> > > > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 7:59 AM Piotr Zarzycki <
> > > > piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I went trough Approval script and everything goes fine. I have
> even
> > > > > tested
> > > > > > Maven artifacts to build our Apache Royale application - this one
> > also
> > > > > went
> > > > > > fine. I have faced some wall when I wanted to try binary
> > distribution
> > > > > which
> > > > > > was produced after build in Moonshine. When I try build Royale
> > > > > application
> > > > > > I'm getting following error:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "This SDK does not contains playerglobal.swc in
> > > > > > frameworks/libs/player/11.7/playerglobal.swc."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Folder frameworks/libs - contains bunch of swcs
> "Collections.swc",
> > > > > > "Basic.swc" etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When I download nightly produced by Maven [1] I see in folder
> > > > > > frameworks/libs/:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > frameworks/libs/air
> > > > > > frameworks/libs/player/20.0/playerglobal.swc
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Screenshot [2]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why they are so big differences ? I used following command to run
> > > > > approval
> > > > > > script: ant -e -f ApproveRoyale.xml -Drelease.version=0.9.8
> -Drc=6
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any thoughts on this ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://nightlies.apache.org/Royale/Royale-asjs/
> > > > > > [2] https://paste.pics/b034e5b11b9342184899e8f29b9887d8
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Piotr
> > > > > >
> > > > > > pon., 16 sie 2021 o 23:47 Andrew Wetmore <cottag...@gmail.com>
> > > > > napisał(a):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is great news
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon., Aug. 16, 2021, 3:22 p.m. Josh Tynjala, <
> > > > > > joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks again for the hard work, Yishay!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I ran the approval script successfully, I confirmed that the
> > > > > > royale-asjs
> > > > > > > > works correctly for powering code intelligence in
> > vscode-as3mxml,
> > > > > and I
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > compile and run asconfigc for Node.js. Looks good to me.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Josh Tynjala
> > > > > > > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 1:15 AM <apacheroyal...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is the discussion thread.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Yishay Weiss
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Piotr Zarzycki
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Piotr Zarzycki
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Piotr Zarzycki
