incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <>
Subject Convenience Binary Policy
Date Mon, 20 Oct 2014 22:08:32 GMT

I’m wondering whether modifications to the set of bundled jars in a
convenience binary package can be made after release without voting.

And if not, I’m looking for any other quick-fix ideas for the following

Flex has many different release packages.  One is an SDK called FlexJS
0.0.2.  Another is an Installer application.  Most folks use the installer
to download Flex binary packages, unpack them and execute a script in the
package to download any dependencies.

The FlexJS install script was working great until about two weeks ago,
when the code the installer uses to fetch a jar from SourceForge stopped
working.  It wasn’t a major problem because FlexJS is in ‘alpha’ stage and
only about 5 folks download it per day and they can go get the binary
package and use Ant to run the script and it will succeed.  However, last
night, a community member realized that he was giving a talk on FlexJS on
Tuesday morning which could cause a rise in the number of folks who would
try to use the installer and subsequently fail.  Any new vote plus mirror
propagation time will not be in time for the talk.

A workaround I tested was to add the jar from SourceForge to the binary
package.  No other files are touched, although I suppose I should update
LICENSE and NOTICE.  This works because the install script sees the jar
and skips trying to download it.  I can take this modified binary package,
host it somewhere, change the installer’s config.xml that it fetches from
flex.a.o so that it will pick up this package instead of the one on dist
(actually, the mirrors) and the FlexJS 0.0.2 install will start working

I know we can’t go messing around with source packages without a vote, but
what about binary packages?  Is it against policy to do something like
this, and if so, can exceptions be made?


View raw message