On 1/1/13 11:09 PM, "Om" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 1, 2013 10:42 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>> Ok, here is my logic:
>>
>> -From [1], a release is "anything that is published beyond the group that
>> owns it.". Putting the config.xml on the site to be consumed by one of
> our
>> binaries makes it part of a release and requires a vote before it happens.
>
> I still don't agree with this logic. The config xml is placed on our
> website which is completely under our control. Which means that we don't
> really 'release' it.
We are taking something from SVN and consuming it in a binary distribution
that we've deployed to our site and telling the world to use it.
Believe me, I've puzzled over why other web-site changes aren't also
considered 'releases' and need voting. I think it is because there is no
code involved. But in this case, there is code involved, whether it is the
installer launched from our web-page or by the user downloading the
installer.
But I would love to be overruled by the mentors or board. I am taking the
most conservative read of the policy because I see that as the safest play
for now. I know it is delaying things, but all of us PMC members have a
priority to make sure we are following Apache policy.
>
> We don't 'release' the installer badge, but it consumes the same exact
> config xml. Are you saying that we need to release the source for the
> badge as well?
IMO, absolutely. Did we not do this in the prior version? Then we really
messed up that release. I thought the same source created the badge
installer, but it got packaged differently before posting on the site.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
