Hi updated links on Docs page.
As we develop more the documentation and final presentation this page needs
more work since the text says that the page is under construction. This
will come more later
As well I added GitHub releases page to download and source code. So now we
have "Current Release"
Also, if you are updating the site, on
http://royale.apache.org/docs/
Please change the ASDoc link to:
http://royale.apache.org/asdoc/
Thanks,
-Alex
On 2/14/18, 2:40 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>The docs Andrew has been curating (which not ASDoc) is here:
>
>
>https://na01.safelinks.pr
The docs Andrew has been curating (which not ASDoc) is here:
https://apache.github.io/royale-docs/
I think it is fine to post a link to it. What do others think?
-Alex
On 2/14/18, 2:28 PM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
wrote:
>Hi, should I update now the Documentatio
Hi, should I update now the Documentation links in the blog. Maybe only
ASDocs?
please let me know what to change and exact links so I can update it
thanks!
2018-02-13 22:13 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
> Thanks Andrew. I'm glad you remembered to push to develop and then merge
> to master. The master
Thanks Andrew. I'm glad you remembered to push to develop and then merge
to master. The master branch has production URLs in _config.yml that we
don't want synced back to develop branch.
I just pushed a quick "Get Started" section to develop and master
branches. Please take a look and fix it up
Hi:
I made a tiny change in develop and then merged it into master with no
problem, yay!
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Alex Harui
wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> I went and did the merge so I can make sure it is ok and reference it from
> the announcement. Feel free to make some edits in develop an
Hi Andrew,
I went and did the merge so I can make sure it is ok and reference it from
the announcement. Feel free to make some edits in develop and merge to
master just to make sure you can do so in case we find some error to
address.
Thanks,
-Alex
On 2/12/18, 11:40 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>A
Hi Carlos,
Yes, the goal is to create an Ant script so that anyone volunteering to be
an Release Manager (RM) can create a release without having to read and
interpret a long list of instructions. I will probably be RM for 0.9.2
and try to use my Windows machine to make sure it works there as wel
One more question. We should update the website with each release like this
one right?
I understand that I must change:
* Downloads page. Should we maintain a list of recent versions? or we
should only update to show latest (in this case 0.9.1)
* Source Code page. The same as in Downloads page
* N
Hi Alex, that's so cool, that means that you have almost automated the
process of a new royale release and that will make it very easy to do ?
If is that I think that's a great work since releasing easily seems we can
make lots of releases a make this project be more alive than ever
thanks!
2018-0
Andrew, please merge royale-docs develop branch to master. If you don't
have time, I will do it, but I want to make sure you are set up to do so.
-Alex
On 2/12/18, 10:11 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>OK, I fixed up and ran the releasecandidate script and it says it posted
>the bits to npm.
>
>I bel
OK, I fixed up and ran the releasecandidate script and it says it posted
the bits to npm.
I believe all branches are merged and appropriately versioned. On to the
next release!
-Alex
On 2/12/18, 12:29 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:
Justin,
I have a suggestion which I hope you take in the spirit of constructive
criticism. Anything you might see and wish to share with this project on a
release which is an observation for the future should be shared in a separate
thread with an altered subject.
FWIW the collective work’s co
Hi,
> No, because the point was to copy something published in 2017.
OK I won't raise a PR but you or another committer still may want to fix this
at some point.
IMO You are publishing it (by voting on the contents of the release and putting
it up n the mirrors) now and that's happening in
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:22 PM, Alex Harui
wrote:
> The steps that publish NPM are in releasecandidate.xml. It does not muck
> with the packages. It looked like your change was to the package.json
> that is already in the package.
>
Yes that is correct. When publishing, the publish script u
The steps that publish NPM are in releasecandidate.xml. It does not muck
with the packages. It looked like your change was to the package.json
that is already in the package.
-Alex
On 2/12/18, 12:08 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
wrote:
>On Feb 12, 2018 11:58 AM, "Al
On Feb 12, 2018 11:58 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
On 2/12/18, 10:42 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
wrote:
>On Feb 12, 2018 10:13 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>
>AIUI, js-swf did not work via NPM as generated from the source package. I
>thought you tweaked it before publishi
On 2/12/18, 10:42 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
wrote:
>On Feb 12, 2018 10:13 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>
>AIUI, js-swf did not work via NPM as generated from the source package. I
>thought you tweaked it before publishing.
>
>Am I wrong about that?
>
>
>That is corre
On Feb 12, 2018 10:13 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
AIUI, js-swf did not work via NPM as generated from the source package. I
thought you tweaked it before publishing.
Am I wrong about that?
That is correct. Are you planning on doing the same this time?
-Alex
On 2/12/18, 10:10 AM, "omup...
AIUI, js-swf did not work via NPM as generated from the source package. I
thought you tweaked it before publishing.
Am I wrong about that?
-Alex
On 2/12/18, 10:10 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
wrote:
>On Feb 12, 2018 8:24 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>
>Voters,
>
>Appar
On Feb 12, 2018 8:24 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
Voters,
Apparently some of you have not quite bought into the new philosophy of
"better than last release and not illegal".
The npm install that worked in the last release will be broken by this new
release. Please explain how this is better than
On 2/9/18, 3:38 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> I only found one copyright. Where are the others?
>
>There’s 2 in the ASFCopyrightAttributionAndLinks.as file I believe. Might
>be another I would need to double check.
>
>Found via:
>find . -type f -exec grep "2017" {} \; -print
>
>> Is it
I was kind of waiting for you to come back online to see where you stood on
these issues.
You’re the RM and I’m not interested in causing you extra work. If you had
wanted to do another RC, then I would have waited and tested that one. If the
npm issue could have been fixed without another RC,
Regarding Approval Script issues:
-The Approval Script builds with both Ant and Maven since we are promising
that the official source artifact can be built with Maven. Maven's
release mechanism currently makes a source artifact per-repo. There are
Maven ways of combining them, but since we need
My point is that is shouldn't matter when Om fixed the npm issue. It was
too late and not as important as getting other stuff done. No need to
wait to see how hard the fix would be. We want to adopt the philosophy
that by default, every found issue goes to the next release unless it is
REALLY im
My comments were not to say that I wasn’t voting for the release. I was just
documenting my difficulties with the approval script.
In fact I was about to vote +1 when I saw that Om fixed the npm issue.
I wanted to test the npm release before I sent in my vote. If you want to push
it to next rel
+1 - Let's go with release! If npm won't work I can download sdk manually
and use it in my IDE.
Thanks, Piotr
2018-02-12 17:24 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
> Voters,
>
> Apparently some of you have not quite bought into the new philosophy of
> "better than last release and not illegal". The cost of a
Voters,
Apparently some of you have not quite bought into the new philosophy of
"better than last release and not illegal". The cost of a new RC is
non-trivial. We have some users who are asking for help to port their
apps against a deadline. To me, that is way more important than fixing
js-swf
BTW, I noticed that I’m getting an error near the end of my ant build. This
does not cause the “general bull” to fail:
check-playerglobal-home:
[echo] PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is /Apache/frameworks/libs/player
[echo] playerglobal.version is 11.1
[echo] playerglobal.swc is
/Apache/framewo
Does this require a new rc or can the script just be updated?
> On Feb 12, 2018, at 10:08 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala
> wrote:
>
> I've pushed in a fix for the broken js-swf npm installation process.
> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/commit/b9a1b32975cc755475ade761f36993efc8f1f058
>
> Alex,
I've pushed in a fix for the broken js-swf npm installation process.
https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/commit/b9a1b32975cc755475ade761f36993efc8f1f058
Alex, given that this release is about npm installation (as per the
RELEASE_NOTES), we need this fix to go in.
Sorry for the trouble :-(
Than
Trying that now…
> On Feb 11, 2018, at 5:09 PM, Piotr Zarzycki wrote:
>
> In the previous release approval script also runs Maven :) You can manually
> copy playerglobal.swc 20.0 to the following location [1]. - That is an
> workaround.
>
> [1] .m2\repository\com\adobe\flash\framework\playerglo
In the previous release approval script also runs Maven :) You can manually
copy playerglobal.swc 20.0 to the following location [1]. - That is an
workaround.
[1] .m2\repository\com\adobe\flash\framework\playerglobal\20.0\
2018-02-11 16:00 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs :
> Ah. Foo… :-(
>
> The maven buil
Ah. Foo… :-(
The maven build failed on Core (after more than 30 minutes):
[ERROR] Failed to execute goal
org.apache.royale.compiler:royale-maven-plugin:0.9.1:compile-as
(default-compile-as) on project Core: Could not resolve dependencies for
project org.apache.royale.framework:Core:swc:0.9.1:
It looks like the ant build was fine. I’m not sure what it’s doing now. It
looks like it’s doing a maven build too? (I’m waiting for that to finish…)
I also tried installing using nom, but that failed for me.
I tried `sudo npm install
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/royale/0.9.1/rc1/bina
I did clean up my folder several times and it didn't help :/
2018-02-11 15:23 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs :
> I got it to run when I ran the script a second time (after cleaning out
> the folder with the approval script).
>
> > On Feb 11, 2018, at 3:24 PM, Piotr Zarzycki
> wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately
It finished building and then failed while building the examples because I
didn’t have maven installed on my machine. I just installed maven and I’m
trying again…
Harbs
> On Feb 11, 2018, at 4:23 PM, Gabe Harbs wrote:
>
> I got it to run when I ran the script a second time (after cleaning out
I got it to run when I ran the script a second time (after cleaning out the
folder with the approval script).
> On Feb 11, 2018, at 3:24 PM, Piotr Zarzycki wrote:
>
> Unfortunately I have also problems with my newest Windows installation. :/
> Anyone experience earlier such things ?
>
> rat-ch
Unfortunately I have also problems with my newest Windows installation. :/
Anyone experience earlier such things ?
rat-check:
Checking files at D:\Work\royale_vote/apache-royale-0.9.1-src, report is
D:\Work\royale_vote/rat-report-src.txt
BUILD FAILED
D:\Work\royale_vote\ApproveRoyale.xml:352: The
I’m having some trouble with ant on my new machine.
I had installed ant using Homebrew, and the approval script complained that
ANT_HOME was not defined. I tried setting it to the home-brew installed
location and that didn’t work.
I removed the homebrew installation and installed ant manually a
Hi,
> I only found one copyright. Where are the others?
There’s 2 in the ASFCopyrightAttributionAndLinks.as file I believe. Might be
another I would need to double check.
Found via:
find . -type f -exec grep "2017" {} \; -print
> Is it just coincidence that you look for this stuff when we sta
On 2/9/18, 12:17 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>HI,
>
>A very minor issue I noticed the new web site example has a number of
>copyright 2017 notices be good to update them to 2018.
I only found one copyright. Where are the others?
Is it just coincidence that you look for this stuff when we star
I’m recovering from pneumonia. I’ll try to check the release on Sunday.
Harbs
> On Feb 8, 2018, at 9:58 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
> This is the discussion thread.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex Harui
>
>
> I also notice that google search has picked up content on
> http://royale.codeoscopic.com and http://www.royalesdk.org domains. This
> may be a little confusing brand wise for users searching for the project.
> It's also picking test pages and the like from
> http://royale.codeoscopic.com and p
In the release thread Justin wrote:
> [...] trademarks asked to have http://www.royalesdk.org redirect to
> http://royale.apache.org? Currently it’s still redirecting to
> http://royale.codeoscopic.com.
>
I am the current owner of that domain. I wasn't aware of a request by
trademarks. The 'www'
HI,
A very minor issue I noticed the new web site example has a number of copyright
2017 notices be good to update them to 2018. It also contains links to assets
on http://royale.codeoscopic.com they should probably be replaced with to links
to http://royale.apache.org or relative links to loca
The release artifacts are a combination of all 3 repos. When you
uncompress an artifact, there is a README there that is different from the
README.md files we put in the root of each repo. The artifact README
comes from the royale-asjs repo in the releasemgr/README file.
-Alex
On 2/8/18, 11:27
Is it that section ?
https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs#additional-prerequisites-for-swf-output
2018-02-09 8:21 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
>
>
> On 2/8/18, 10:55 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki" wrote:
>
> >Hi Alex,
> >
> >One question to this release. Did you document anywhere that if someone
> >download R
On 2/8/18, 10:55 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki" wrote:
>Hi Alex,
>
>One question to this release. Did you document anywhere that if someone
>download Royale SWF, JS have to on his own download the rest of
>dependencies ?
It is in the top-level README.
-Alex
>
>Thanks,
>Piotr
>
>2018-02-08 20:58 GMT+01:
Hi Alex,
One question to this release. Did you document anywhere that if someone
download Royale SWF, JS have to on his own download the rest of
dependencies ?
Thanks,
Piotr
2018-02-08 20:58 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
> This is the discussion thread.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex Harui
>
>
--
Piotr Zarzyc
This is the discussion thread.
Thanks,
Alex Harui
51 matches
Mail list logo
