I hope the few people building from sources would try with actual
instructions and if they have problems come to the list and try to solve it
with our help, so we can improve scripts and build process learning from
that kind of experiences.
El lun., 23 sept. 2019 a las 14:05, Andrew Wetmore ()
Yes: the PERFECT would be clear and simple instructions that work and do
not scare people away. We do not seem to have those. I thought the
discussion was whether to go forward with the release anyhow, since the
number of users who build from source is smaller than the number who use
the compiled
Hi Andrew,
ok I understand.
IMHO, instructions should be as easy as possible. People that see steps
depending on things that are not clear will be mostly lost and with high
probability of never come back. Royale SDK is a complex technology with
many pieces involved, we should make the install
Oops: edited my proposed text and did not check it afterwards. What I meant
was this for the release page for 0.9.6::
"The current version of Apache Royale is 0.9.6, released in MONTH YEAR. It
is beta-quality. This means that Royale may not work entirely as you or we
want it to, and that certain
The question is whether we release 0.9.6 when the instructions for
compiling from source are incomplete and/or inaccurate.
For 0.9.4 the page says "The current version of *Apache Royale* is *0.9.4*,
released in *Diciembre, 2018*. It is *beta-quality*. This means that Royale
may not work entirely
Hi Andrew,
can you specify what you mean? Here's the download page with all download
links: https://royale.apache.org/download/
El dom., 22 sept. 2019 a las 20:11, Andrew Wetmore ()
escribió:
> Could it not also be posted on the website, where the link for downloading
> the release is?
>
> On
Could it not also be posted on the website, where the link for downloading
the release is?
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 8:53 PM Alex Harui wrote:
> The only place to include it without altering the release artifacts is in
> the RELEASE_NOTES addendum in our wiki.
>
> We could do that, but folks
The only place to include it without altering the release artifacts is in the
RELEASE_NOTES addendum in our wiki.
We could do that, but folks probably won't look there until after they have a
problem.
-Alex
On 9/21/19, 4:44 AM, "Andrew Wetmore" wrote:
Would it be acceptable to include
Would it be acceptable to include some sort of explanation that compiling
from source will require setting a number of environment variables, not
just ANT_HOME, and that, if you really want to compile 0.9.6 from source,
you should contact [LIST EMAIL] for instructions on what to do? It sort of
I think we all want to get a release out.
My user experience was the equivalent of taking the source package and trying
to build it without setting any environment variables other than ANT_HOME as
specified in the README. It did not work for me.
The question is: how many of our users are
I'm in favor of moving forward. I would like to finally release stuff.
I can live with setting up env. Variables. I'm concern by the user
experience than mine.
Thanks,
Piotr
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 10:36 PM Alex Harui wrote:
> Don't know. Judgement call.
>
> We've done a bunch of work since
Don't know. Judgement call.
We've done a bunch of work since 0.9.4 to allow folks to be able to compile
without the Adobe Flash and AIR SDKs. I've run into a couple of problems.
ASDoc's JSON generator was failing if you didn't have Flash SDK. I mentioned
it in the RC1 discuss thread. I
Hi Alex,
We need to have it in 0.9.6?
Thanks,
Piotr
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019, 9:49 PM wrote:
> This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository.
>
> aharui pushed a commit to branch release/0.9.6
> in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/royale-asjs.git
>
>
> The
13 matches
Mail list logo
