I did a full mustella run over the weekend (it takes my computer over 12 hours...). In an initial pass, I got about 70 errors or so with the swcs not including version.properties. Then I reverted the changes and run the mustella on the failures getting the same errors, the changes don't seem to introduce any new errors.
@Justin Since you were the one to raise concerns about this, does this look good to you? To wrap it up, in the other thread Gordon said: I think Adobe's build machines had some scripts that set build.number to > the Perforce revision number that it was building. I assumed this was being used to keep track of the released versions of some swcs. Can someone on Adobe confirm or further comment on this? What strikes me as odd is that only those 3 swcs were including this file. Is there some explanation for this, or is this maybe just some code left from the donation process? Cheers, Chema 2012/12/8 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> > There was a discussion in another thread. Maybe I misunderstood. Anyway > develop branch was broken. Release branch doesn't have this problem. > > Sent from my Motorola ATRIX™ 4G on AT&T > > > -----Original message----- > From: Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> > To: "flex-dev@incubator.apache.org" <flex-dev@incubator.apache.org> > Sent: Sat, Dec 8, 2012 17:33:55 GMT+00:00 > Subject: Re: svn commit: r1418709 - in > /incubator/flex/sdk/branches/develop/frameworks/projects: rpc/build.xml > spark/build.xml spark_dmv/build.xml > > Hi, > > > Remove version.properties include-file directive from rpc, spark and > spark_dmv as conflicts with compile-config.xml and is currently unused > You might want to double check that it not used in the release build. I > think that the version number is used when generating the RSLs. > > Justin >
