Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Hi Justin, it seems to me that the issue is that the 'type selector', e.g. h1{} [1] is transpiled to a class selector .h1{}. And because no class selector is assigned to those components, those styles will never be applied. So, setting className="h1" works, but that's probably not that what we

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Hi, I’ve run into a issue with this release, if you use the HTML component and style them some of the styles (in particular font and font size) are being overridden. You can see this with the HTML example in royale-asjs/examples/royale/HTMLElements all of the H1 - H6 headers end up being the

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

OK, I am going to prepare RC2. On 1/18/18, 3:23 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira" wrote: >Hi Alex, > >it's ok to remove both. We need to get a first release as soon as >possible. >People on twitter is ask us

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Hi Alex, it's ok to remove both. We need to get a first release as soon as possible. People on twitter is ask us for this. So First things first. Thanks 2018-01-18 11:00 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui : > Hi Carlos, > > I don't doubt that MDLExample is referred to often, however

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Hi Carlos, I don't doubt that MDLExample is referred to often, however it may not be ok for us to bundle it in Royale releases. The problem is not the images, it is the bits of CSS and maybe some text content from HTML files that is the issue. Are you ok with us removing MDLExample and

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Hi, > Are you now claiming this content is under CC-BY-SA instead of just CC-BY? > I did not see that. Where did you get that? Share-Alike (SA) has more > restrictions than just CC-BY, AIUI. Sorry my mistake it’s CC-BY not CC-SA. Full name "Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Here is the relevant license text: = All code in any directories or sub-directories that end with *.html or *.css is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License, which full text can be found here:

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

The legal email is here: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/22458fb5e7e73adaff5345744ba16842c57352 eab72fd89ae0423327@%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E -Alex On 1/17/18, 11:30 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" wrote: >Hi Alex, > >Thanks for the explanation. Can you share link to

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Hi Alex, Thanks for the explanation. Can you share link to the legal email/jira - I cannot find it. Legal-VP - It means that you have asked one person ? Option 1) I personally don't have enough free time to make such changes in those examples. Option 2) If Legal answer that because of current

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

On 1/16/18, 9:16 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: >Hi, > >> Royale is not going to operate like Flex. We want to be more responsive >> to our users. So instead of conducting detailed searches for IP issues >>at >> release time, they should be done at commit time or at

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Piotr, Carlos, Please read and respond. Others are welcome to give their thoughts as well. Just to be clear, MDLBlogExample is an attempt to exactly replicate an example from Google's MDL repo. Google's example contains HTML and CSS files and the example uses text content from the HTML files

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

We have to also exclude MDLBlogExample from ANT build, because ANT is producing distribution package for IDE usage not Maven. Thanks for explanation, so by deprecation you mean rather recommendation to the users some other UI module instead of MDL. Not removing it completely from the framework

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Hi Piotr 2018-01-17 13:29 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki : > Hi Carlos, > > I think removing MDLBlogExample completely will be better, cause we don't > need to remember in every release about exclusion of that example. > exclusion in maven is only not to list in modules

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Hi Carlos, I think removing MDLBlogExample completely will be better, cause we don't need to remember in every release about exclusion of that example. What do you mean by "deprecate that library" in terms of open source project ? Thanks, Piotr 2018-01-17 13:24 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Hi, I think MDLExample is one of the most referred examples out there. I couldn't follow all the discussion since I was busy with work and other task in this project, but I read that we had some problems with images. We can change the images for place holders. If there's some more problem I don't

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Olaf, I'm against even for that. MDLExample should be always in release package. If I understand Alex's idea the things should be fixed in the commit time, so now we have release time. We had that issue for several releases, we can leave with it one more release. Thanks, Piotr 2018-01-17 10:24

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Hi Piotr, just to make sure you don't get it wrong: The idea is to just remove it from the RC2 (So from the first Royale release at the end) just in order to have some more time to fix the IP/license issues and so don't delay the release any longer. This does not mean that those examples aren't

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

If there is unresolvable license issue which do not allow us to keep those examples - I will get them to my private repository, than we can remove from this project. 2018-01-17 10:02 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki : > Hi Guys, > > I'm definitely against of removing MDL

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Hi Guys, I'm definitely against of removing MDL examples. I could agree only on removing MDLBlogExample, because it's not finished and I'm not going to invest time to finish it. Unless Carlos have such pans. If we cannot resolve something now let's resolve it for the next release. Let's start

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

OK, please remove it from the release/0.9.0 branch. Thanks, -Alex On 1/16/18, 10:06 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote: >On Jan 16, 2018 8:47 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote: > > > >On 1/16/18,

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

On Jan 16, 2018 8:47 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote: On 1/16/18, 1:13 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote: > >+1 to exclude the MDL examples from this release. Let's find a good way >to >fix the

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Hi Justin, We have it now and are doing the correct thing in a natural way. An Apache Member who was on my first PMC has explained the situation well. He calls it “cups and saucers” when we discovered a single GPL file had been in a few releases we removed it. It is best effort and sometimes

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Hi, > Can you provide a link to that discussion? Sure here [1] As discussed in that thread I asked them to clarity what license the files are under [2] (way back in October 2016) and got no response. Other people since then have asked the same question (including Om yesterday) and not got any

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

On 1/16/18, 1:13 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote: > >+1 to exclude the MDL examples from this release. Let's find a good way >to >fix the IP issues in our next release. Speaking of removing examples... What's

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

On 1/16/18, 3:32 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: > >Yes is is unfortunate that the PMC failed to notice this issue. The issue >had actually been brought up before the MDL code was checked in to a repo >and there was some discussion about the issues but it wasn’t fully

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Hi, > After Justin pointed out that there is CSS under CC-BY-4.0 in > MDLBlogExample, I took a closer look > and realized that really, I think these two examples are just ports of > Google's examples and thus should remain under Google's copyright Yep I agree with that. > There is also a

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > Thanks Olaf! Good to know that we don't have that restriction anymore. > > I'd like to get Piotr and Carlos's opinions about removing the MDL > examples since they worked so hard on it. I'm finishing up changing the

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Ah yes, that's a bug that has already been fixed for RC2. It doesn't happen when you first run a build in the source folder but now you are running a build for the second time. Try deleting the apache-royale-0.9.0-src/royale-asjs/lib and apache-royale-0.9.0-src/royale-asjs/js/lib folders and try

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Hi Alex, I've stumbled over the next issue [1]. It seems to me that externc is not available? Any ideas? Thanks, Olaf [1] download: C:\local\apache-royale\release-process\apache-royale-0.9.0-src\royale-asjs Expanding:

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Olaf is correct. He can just try hand-patching the files that have been downloaded and expanded in the folder where he is running ApproveRoyale.xml. There should be an apache-royals-0.9.0-src folder with a royale-asjs/examples/royale/DataBindingExample_Flat subfolder. Running the "build" target

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Piotr, I guess this time I understand what to do...hopefully ;-): Alex made a change at one of the examples at the release/0.9.0 branch. Because the distribution server does not contain this change I can't continue testing. So, in order to continue testing I have to adopt Alex change to my local

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

I have not created a new RC with that change. You can make the change locally and run just the build portion of the approval script by running: Ant -e -f ApproveRoyale.xml -Drelease.version=0.9.0 -Drc=1 build Thanks, -Alex On 1/15/18, 1:01 PM, "Olaf Krueger" wrote: >Hi

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Hi Alex, the build still fails for me with the same issue [1]. I can see your fix on the asjs GitHub release/0.9.0 branch [2]. But it seems to me that the distribution which I guess is used by the script [3] does not contain your fix. I thought that this happens automatically... is there some

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Hi Alex, >I pushed a change to the release/0.9.0 branch that appears to fix it. Thanks! I will check it out tonight and will fix other examples this way if needed. But honestly, I don't understand how it works: Does it mean that those examples which depends on a *JS.swc (like FlatJS.swc) lib

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Hi Alex, for my understanding, the "DataBindingExample_Flat" example depends on "Flat.swc" [1] and in opposition to what I've said before, this is not available in my local folder 'apache-royale-0.9.0-src' during the build (I thought it is available, but it is only available in

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Hi Olaf, I think I may have added -Dplayerglobal.version=28.0 as well as setting PLAYERGLOBAL_VERSION. However, yes, I am more interested in seeing if the script will run without any of AIR_HOME/PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME/FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER set. So not only should you remove the checks in

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Hi It seems to me that "PLAYERGLOBAL_VERSION" does not work for me for whatever reason: After setting "PLAYERGLOBAL_VERSION=28.0" the script is still complaining that "playerglobal.version" should 11.1. So I removed "PLAYERGLOBAL_VERSION" and set "PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME" to playerglobal.swc version

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

On 1/12/18, 12:18 AM, "Olaf Krueger" wrote: >>I mentioned elsewhere that setting an environment variable of >>PLAYERGLOBAL_VERSION worked for me. > >I overlooked this and will check it out. >Should I set the version in a format like "28.0" or "28" or "28_0"? 28.0 >

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

>I mentioned elsewhere that setting an environment variable of >PLAYERGLOBAL_VERSION worked for me. I overlooked this and will check it out. Should I set the version in a format like "28.0" or "28" or "28_0"? >Also, I still think it would be helpful if you would just remove the >checks for

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Olaf, I mentioned elsewhere that setting an environment variable of PLAYERGLOBAL_VERSION worked for me. Also, I still think it would be helpful if you would just remove the checks for AIR_HOME/PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME/FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER and see what else needs to change to get the approval script to

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

The keys are working now. Now I stumble over the playerglobal version issue [1] which others also had. Will continue tomorrow with downloading playerglobal 11.1... wanna cry ;-) Thanks, Olaf [1] playerglobal.version is 11.1 -- Sent from: http://apache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com/

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Have you imported the public keys from Flex? If not, you may need to import them. This made me realize that we hadn't published a KEYS file for ROYALE so I quickly put one together at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/royale/KEYS Download and import it into GPG and try again. HTH,

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Hi, I also downloaded "FlashPlayer projector content debugger" and link FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER to it. Now the script seems to work but it fails because of a signature issue [1]. I notice that others voted with +1 including a proper 'signatures match'? Do I am something wrong? Thanks, Olaf [1]

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Alex Harui-2 wrote > For me, line 83 is blank. What do you see? Maybe it is a code-page > issue? Sorry for the noise guys, it was my fault one more time: I've just copied and pasted the XML in order to create a local file which was obviously not a good idea because of code-page issues :-( I

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

ml somewhere? > > > > > From: Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 7:26:27 PM > To: dev@royale.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1 > > For me, line 83 is blank. What do yo

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

> Try taking out the requirements... I will check it out! Regarding the approval script: I am pretty sure that this script is not well-formed XML. The '<' is not allowed in line 83 because it is not allowed with XML to have this '<' character in attribute values. I guess we have to replace it by

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Olaf, Gee, I completely forgot to test out removing the environment variable restrictions. Try taking out the requirements for AIR_HOME/PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME/FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER and see how far you get. Thanks, -Alex On 1/10/18, 12:06 PM, "Olaf Krueger" wrote: >> ant -e

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Olaf, My environment variable looks like that: AIR_HOME=path to Flex SDK 4.16.1 with Adobe Air 28 FLEX_HOME=path to flex sdk PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME=d:\flex_sdk\player In player I have folders: Thanks, Piotr

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

> ant -e -f ApproveRoyale.xml -Drelease.version=0.9.0 -Drc=1 Yes, I used this. Because the error message is something like " '<' is not allowed in row 83" of the script, I just removed it. Now ant complains that AIR_HOME is not set or passed with the command [1]. I am still not familiar with all

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Hi Piotr, ok, thanks 2018-01-10 10:45 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki : > Hi Carlos, > > Responding in the Discussion Thread. We may try for the next version. Alex > did correction in the Develop, so we are good. > > Thanks for the link! > Piotr > > > 2018-01-09 23:47

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Hi Carlos, Responding in the Discussion Thread. We may try for the next version. Alex did correction in the Develop, so we are good. Thanks for the link! Piotr 2018-01-09 23:47 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki : > Hi Olaf, > > It is definitely not your fault. It is because

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Hi Olaf, It is definitely not your fault. It is because HelloWorld pom.xml is not prepared to build without parent etc. I have tweaked pom a big. Please download this one and try to build [1]. You may get question about accepting license for playerglobal, just type "y". [1]

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Olaf Krueger wrote: > The ApproveRoyale script fails for me [1][2]. > I've just installed ant on my Windows 10 machine and followed the > instructions. > > I have to admit that I have no experience with ant... > Does it mean that the script

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

The ApproveRoyale script fails for me [1][2]. I've just installed ant on my Windows 10 machine and followed the instructions. I have to admit that I have no experience with ant... Does it mean that the script is not "well-formed"? Or does it mean that the error "The release version is not set"

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

I hopefully did all the things as you've described it. But unfortunately, it fails for me. Hope this helps [1]. Thanks, Olaf [1] $ mvn clean install -s settings-template.xml [INFO] Scanning for projects... Downloading from apache-staging: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositor

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

I made some changes to the develop branch and tests seem to be passing on Windows in the Maven CI -Alex On 1/9/18, 8:37 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote: >FWIW, the tests passed for me on Windows on the first try, but the log >shows I got lucky and the js.swc was written out

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

The whole point of the "release philosophy" thread is that we are trying to re-program everyone's mentality towards shipping instead of not shipping. I agree we need to make the scripts work for other player versions, but again, that can be done in the next release. If you find a problem, don't

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Yes, I can get 11.1, but 27.0 is in the apache-royale-0.9.0 IDE-compatable directory that got built with the installer script. It must have downloaded the latest playerglobal.swc at that time. Seems natural to use that rather than 11.1. ‹peter On 1/9/18, 11:30 AM, "yishayw"

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Peter, if you look in royale-asjs README isn't the following set of instructions consistent with your results? > ## Additional Prerequisites For SWF Output > > ### *playerglobal.swc* > > The Adobe Flash Player *playerglobal.swc* (version 11.1) can be downloaded > from: > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

On pipeline tests are skipped. If Om will try again without clean and have same result as me - I think we are good here. Thanks, Piotr 2018-01-09 10:35 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki : > Alex, > > Yes they passed without the clean. :) > > Thanks, Piotr > > 2018-01-09 9:43

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Alex, Yes they passed without the clean. :) Thanks, Piotr 2018-01-09 9:43 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui : > I just found out that the royals-compiler build on builds.a.o was not > running tests. > > I'm running the approval script on Windows right now. I'll probably go to >

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

I just found out that the royals-compiler build on builds.a.o was not running tests. I'm running the approval script on Windows right now. I'll probably go to bed and check it in the morning. It passed on Mac for me. If you run Maven without a clean a second time on the royale-compiler folder

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

I dont remember at all when I run tests last time. Im always using builds.a.o for the tests. As you said if they pass on builds.a.o we may be good. Letès check on pipeline https://builds.apache.org/job/Royale%20Pipeline/job/release%252F0.9.0/ Thanks, Piotr 2018-01-09 9:22 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Last time you ran these tests from the repo or a nightly did they pass? -Alex On 1/9/18, 12:18 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" wrote: >Alex, > >I just run the tests and have same issue as Om. It is something with an >order, cause tests first complaining about missing js.swc,

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Alex, I just run the tests and have same issue as Om. It is something with an order, cause tests first complaining about missing js.swc, later that swc is being written in the folder. [1] [1] https://paste.apache.org/wLFl Piotr 2018-01-09 8:37 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

On 1/8/18, 11:23 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki" wrote: >Alex, > >Agree with you for the tests with Maven Artifacts, but definitely I'm with >Om in case of failing tests. Unless there is some lot's of fixes there. A failing test may not be a major problem if it is only failing

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Alex, Agree with you for the tests with Maven Artifacts, but definitely I'm with Om in case of failing tests. Unless there is some lot's of fixes there. I hope Olaf won't have any problems. :) Thanks, Piotr 2018-01-09 8:03 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui : > That's fine for

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Hi Justin, I was doing my research. See https://github.com/google/material-design-lite/blob/mdl-1.x/README.md Google has relicensed as AL 2. See the bottom. Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 8, 2018, at 11:10 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > > Hi, > >> Those

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Hi, > Those files come from here [1] > > [1] https://getmdl.io/templates/index.html Thanks, do you know how they are licensed? I can see there’s an open issue reguarding licensing of these files. [1] The original check in doesn’t help much [2] other than the icons seem to be under an CCSA

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Olaf, I'm glad that you haven't use it - This is the test which I would like to see. How does that work on the clean machine. Of course you will need to download and install Maven first. :) As for the name of template it doesn't matter, you can specify it in your command if you name it

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

As mentioned in the VOTE thread, I had unit tests failing while building the compiler with Maven. The full console log is available here [1] Thanks, Om [1] https://gist.github.com/anonymous/146e95749626a54dd2a6a2937c9591c0 On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 10:14 PM, Olaf Krueger

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Hi, Does any one know where these files come from and how they are licensed? [1] I quick reverse image search shows several of them to be part of commercial web templates, but those templates could of got them from else where. Thanks, Justin 1,

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

It would be really great if someone from PMCs who never touch Maven tried test some application. That would be really helpful. Thanks, Piotr 2018-01-08 23:00 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki : > Today I had time to test only Maven artifacts. Tomorrow hopefully will try > ANT

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Today I had time to test only Maven artifacts. Tomorrow hopefully will try ANT and building stuff. Just wanted to share with you guys instruction how to test Maven artifacts. My tests went well. I have build three applications 2 MDL and one with Basic components - Each run without the problem. :)

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

On 1/8/18, 12:52 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" wrote: >Placing discussion here. > >Understand, so the problem actually now is in Develop, but in 0.9.0 >doesn't >exists, cause script simply invoke creation exact what we have in >"develop" >branch. Once we finish release, merge

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 0.9.0 RC1

Hi Alex, My concerns about that is actually been in thread "Royale Release Process Philosophy". Feel free to respond here. :) Thanks, Piotr 2018-01-08 9:14 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui : > This is the discussion thread. > > The Maven artifacts are staged here: >