On 1/1/13 11:16 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> -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.
> It published on the Flex web site by Flex committers give access by the ASF
> I'd read that as not being "beyond the group". Or are you saying we need to
> vote every time we make a change to the web site or wiki?
I mentioned in another reply that there seems to be different rules for
web-site content. But this is a file consumed by code.
>
>> -Also from [1], " All releases are in the form of the source materials
>> needed to make changes to the software being released."
> Everything is contained in the source and anyone can download and build the
> installer so that is covered as well.
>
> I would agree there would the issue if any file was owned or hosted by a 3rd
> party. This is not the case,
Right, but the config.xml is part of this kit isn't it? If not it should be
and then IMO, posting it on the site could be construed to be a "release".
>
>> -From [2], "The role of the PMC from a Foundation perspective is oversight.
>> The main role of the PMC is not code and not coding - but to ensure that all
>> legal issues are addressed, that procedure is followed, and that each and
>> every release is the product of the community as a whole.
> This installer is the product of the community I don't see how anyone could
> claim otherwise so again I don't believe there is an issue here either.
Because I think we have released a source material file (the config.xml)
without a vote. I looked: it is there on incubator/flex now.
>
>> As much as we want to get this release out the door, the fact is it is more
>> important to make sure we are following policy.
>
> We are following policy the installer will be put up for a vote and released
> in the normal way.
>
> If you really think that the above is the case then I can't see how we will
> ever be able to release the installer or even make the 4.9 release
> announcement and having a 2 or 3 vote process is just too much to ask of most
> committers limited time. I see the only options are, unles syou have a better
> idea, is to remove the installer out of Apache or abandon it and insist that
> users compile the SDK from scratch.
I think longer term Dave Fisher had some good ideas. The list of
dependencies should be in the SDK. The list of SDKs and their URLs should
be in a file relative to the installer. Or could we get the list by hitting
the dist folder and archive folder via HTTP and parsing the result to see
what is in it?
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
