[FlexJS] odd license headers on some files

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
29 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[FlexJS] odd license headers on some files

Justin Mclean
Administrator
Hi,

Noticed that a number of files (around 220 from a quick check) don’t have the standard license header text. For instance see [1]. Is there any particular reason for this?

Note that the required header text is a little longer [2] and the files above are missing the first two sentances about ICLAs and the NOTICE file.

Thanks,
Justin

1. https://github.com/apache/flex-asjs/blob/fd709d137e5f740fd3a7f7dfbcde0e898e25f103/frameworks/projects/Graphics/src/main/flex/org/apache/flex/graphics/IDrawable.as <https://github.com/apache/flex-asjs/blob/fd709d137e5f740fd3a7f7dfbcde0e898e25f103/frameworks/projects/Graphics/src/main/flex/org/apache/flex/graphics/IDrawable.as>
2. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers <https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files

piotrz
Hi Justin,

My experience in work with it - that problem is a simple copy-paste, but maybe someone will have other explanation. :)

Thanks,
Piotr
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files

Justin Mclean
Administrator
HI,

> that problem is a simple copy-paste

I’m thinking that what it probably is but may be a reason I’m unaware of.

Thanks,
Justin
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files

Harbs
That file is one I created. I copy-pasted the header from a different file (I don’t remember which one).

I did not notice there are two different headers being used, so no clues here…

Harbs

> On May 23, 2017, at 5:11 AM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> HI,
>
>> that problem is a simple copy-paste
>
> I’m thinking that what it probably is but may be a reason I’m unaware of.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files

Christofer Dutz
So how about just updating all places where the license is not correct?
I guess this should be as easy as 1,2,3 … or are there any problems with this. Then copy & pasting the wrong version should become quite difficult ;-)

Chris


Am 23.05.17, 13:45 schrieb "Harbs" <[hidden email]>:

    That file is one I created. I copy-pasted the header from a different file (I don’t remember which one).
   
    I did not notice there are two different headers being used, so no clues here…
   
    Harbs
   
    > On May 23, 2017, at 5:11 AM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]> wrote:
    >
    > HI,
    >
    >> that problem is a simple copy-paste
    >
    > I’m thinking that what it probably is but may be a reason I’m unaware of.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Justin
   
   

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files

Harbs
My assumption is that we got two different headers by mistake, but let’s wait until more people weigh in before we change anything.

If it was a mistake, it should be a simple find/replace to fix it.

> On May 23, 2017, at 8:44 AM, Christofer Dutz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> So how about just updating all places where the license is not correct?
> I guess this should be as easy as 1,2,3 … or are there any problems with this. Then copy & pasting the wrong version should become quite difficult ;-)
>
> Chris
>
>
> Am 23.05.17, 13:45 schrieb "Harbs" <[hidden email]>:
>
>    That file is one I created. I copy-pasted the header from a different file (I don’t remember which one).
>
>    I did not notice there are two different headers being used, so no clues here…
>
>    Harbs
>
>> On May 23, 2017, at 5:11 AM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> HI,
>>
>>> that problem is a simple copy-paste
>>
>> I’m thinking that what it probably is but may be a reason I’m unaware of.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files

Josh Tynjala
In reply to this post by Christofer Dutz
+1

I'm sure it's just a copy/paste mistake. Let's go ahead and make them
consistent.

- Josh

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Christofer Dutz <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> So how about just updating all places where the license is not correct?
> I guess this should be as easy as 1,2,3 … or are there any problems with
> this. Then copy & pasting the wrong version should become quite difficult
> ;-)
>
> Chris
>
>
> Am 23.05.17, 13:45 schrieb "Harbs" <[hidden email]>:
>
>     That file is one I created. I copy-pasted the header from a different
> file (I don’t remember which one).
>
>     I did not notice there are two different headers being used, so no
> clues here…
>
>     Harbs
>
>     > On May 23, 2017, at 5:11 AM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>     >
>     > HI,
>     >
>     >> that problem is a simple copy-paste
>     >
>     > I’m thinking that what it probably is but may be a reason I’m
> unaware of.
>     >
>     > Thanks,
>     > Justin
>
>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files

Alex Harui-2
Did RAT catch this?  If not, why bother doing anything here?  Might want
to check with the RAT folks to see why they permit it and deal with it
after the release.  Let's spend our energy on making sure there aren't any
big bugs out there.

Thanks,
-Alex

On 5/23/17, 7:39 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>+1
>
>I'm sure it's just a copy/paste mistake. Let's go ahead and make them
>consistent.
>
>- Josh
>
>On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Christofer Dutz
><[hidden email]>
>wrote:
>
>> So how about just updating all places where the license is not correct?
>> I guess this should be as easy as 1,2,3 … or are there any problems with
>> this. Then copy & pasting the wrong version should become quite
>>difficult
>> ;-)
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> Am 23.05.17, 13:45 schrieb "Harbs" <[hidden email]>:
>>
>>     That file is one I created. I copy-pasted the header from a
>>different
>> file (I don’t remember which one).
>>
>>     I did not notice there are two different headers being used, so no
>> clues here…
>>
>>     Harbs
>>
>>     > On May 23, 2017, at 5:11 AM, Justin Mclean
>><[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>     >
>>     > HI,
>>     >
>>     >> that problem is a simple copy-paste
>>     >
>>     > I’m thinking that what it probably is but may be a reason I’m
>> unaware of.
>>     >
>>     > Thanks,
>>     > Justin
>>
>>
>>
>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files

Christofer Dutz
Hi Alex,

I disagree … if things like this are found, why do them later instead of just fixing things and not have to deal with them again?

I would like to resolve things like this as quietly and as swiftly as possible. It’s not keeping you from your work, is it?

And it’s not going to conflict any operational code, is it?

So, if Justin found something, just let him fix it and not start yet another license discussion about it. But that’s just my opinion.

Chris



Am 23.05.17, 17:04 schrieb "Alex Harui" <[hidden email]>:

    Did RAT catch this?  If not, why bother doing anything here?  Might want
    to check with the RAT folks to see why they permit it and deal with it
    after the release.  Let's spend our energy on making sure there aren't any
    big bugs out there.
   
    Thanks,
    -Alex
   
    On 5/23/17, 7:39 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <[hidden email]> wrote:
   
    >+1
    >
    >I'm sure it's just a copy/paste mistake. Let's go ahead and make them
    >consistent.
    >
    >- Josh
    >
    >On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Christofer Dutz
    ><[hidden email]>
    >wrote:
    >
    >> So how about just updating all places where the license is not correct?
    >> I guess this should be as easy as 1,2,3 … or are there any problems with
    >> this. Then copy & pasting the wrong version should become quite
    >>difficult
    >> ;-)
    >>
    >> Chris
    >>
    >>
    >> Am 23.05.17, 13:45 schrieb "Harbs" <[hidden email]>:
    >>
    >>     That file is one I created. I copy-pasted the header from a
    >>different
    >> file (I don’t remember which one).
    >>
    >>     I did not notice there are two different headers being used, so no
    >> clues here…
    >>
    >>     Harbs
    >>
    >>     > On May 23, 2017, at 5:11 AM, Justin Mclean
    >><[hidden email]>
    >> wrote:
    >>     >
    >>     > HI,
    >>     >
    >>     >> that problem is a simple copy-paste
    >>     >
    >>     > I’m thinking that what it probably is but may be a reason I’m
    >> unaware of.
    >>     >
    >>     > Thanks,
    >>     > Justin
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
   
   

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files

Josh Tynjala
Agreed. Justin is good at catching licensing issues, and he seems willing
to fix them himself, so let's not hold him back if he wants to do that. As
long as his proposed changes seem correct at a glance, I feel like this
should not require any discussion except to say "go for it!"

- Josh

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Christofer Dutz <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi Alex,
>
> I disagree … if things like this are found, why do them later instead of
> just fixing things and not have to deal with them again?
>
> I would like to resolve things like this as quietly and as swiftly as
> possible. It’s not keeping you from your work, is it?
>
> And it’s not going to conflict any operational code, is it?
>
> So, if Justin found something, just let him fix it and not start yet
> another license discussion about it. But that’s just my opinion.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> Am 23.05.17, 17:04 schrieb "Alex Harui" <[hidden email]>:
>
>     Did RAT catch this?  If not, why bother doing anything here?  Might
> want
>     to check with the RAT folks to see why they permit it and deal with it
>     after the release.  Let's spend our energy on making sure there aren't
> any
>     big bugs out there.
>
>     Thanks,
>     -Alex
>
>     On 5/23/17, 7:39 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>     >+1
>     >
>     >I'm sure it's just a copy/paste mistake. Let's go ahead and make them
>     >consistent.
>     >
>     >- Josh
>     >
>     >On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Christofer Dutz
>     ><[hidden email]>
>     >wrote:
>     >
>     >> So how about just updating all places where the license is not
> correct?
>     >> I guess this should be as easy as 1,2,3 … or are there any problems
> with
>     >> this. Then copy & pasting the wrong version should become quite
>     >>difficult
>     >> ;-)
>     >>
>     >> Chris
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> Am 23.05.17, 13:45 schrieb "Harbs" <[hidden email]>:
>     >>
>     >>     That file is one I created. I copy-pasted the header from a
>     >>different
>     >> file (I don’t remember which one).
>     >>
>     >>     I did not notice there are two different headers being used, so
> no
>     >> clues here…
>     >>
>     >>     Harbs
>     >>
>     >>     > On May 23, 2017, at 5:11 AM, Justin Mclean
>     >><[hidden email]>
>     >> wrote:
>     >>     >
>     >>     > HI,
>     >>     >
>     >>     >> that problem is a simple copy-paste
>     >>     >
>     >>     > I’m thinking that what it probably is but may be a reason I’m
>     >> unaware of.
>     >>     >
>     >>     > Thanks,
>     >>     > Justin
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>
>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files

Justin Mclean
Administrator
Hi,

> Agreed. Justin is good at catching licensing issues, and he seems willing
> to fix them himself

Yep I’ll willing to fix this I was just unsure of the reason why the different headers existed and if there was a reason other than copy / paste issue

I also come across this  header in [1] which may perhaps be a concern? I gather it's related to iOS/Android native extensions.

// ADOBE CONFIDENTIAL
//
// Copyright 2011 Adobe Systems Incorporated All Rights Reserved.
//
// NOTICE: All information contained herein is, and remains the property of
// Adobe Systems Incorporated and its suppliers, if any. The intellectual and
// technical concepts contained herein are proprietary to Adobe Systems
// Incorporated and its suppliers and may be covered by U.S. and Foreign
// Patents, patents in process, and are protected by trade secret or copyright
// law. Dissemination of this information or reproduction of this material
// is strictly forbidden unless prior written permission is obtained from
// Adobe Systems Incorporated.

Thanks,
Justin

1. ./flexJS/include/FlashRuntimeExtensions.h
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files

Justin Mclean
Administrator
In reply to this post by Alex Harui-2
Hi,

> Did RAT catch this?  If not, why bother doing anything here?

Because RAT is a simple tool and it doesn’t catch everything. It even tells you that when you run it.

NOTE:
Rat is really little more than a grep ATM
Rat is also rather memory hungry ATM
Rat is very basic ATM
Rat highlights possible issues
Rat reports require intepretation
Rat often requires some tuning before it runs well against a project
Rat relies on heuristics: it may miss issues

Re “why bother doing anything”  while I don’t think this is a big issue we have some files that are clearly Apache licensed but they have the wrong header text. The full header text is required by Apache legal policy [1] other than in a couple of cases. IMO we should just fix it and move on.

Thanks,
Justin

1. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files

Alex Harui-2
In reply to this post by Christofer Dutz


On 5/23/17, 1:03 PM, "Christofer Dutz" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Hi Alex,
>
>I disagree … if things like this are found, why do them later instead of
>just fixing things and not have to deal with them again?

Because we want to demonstrate that releasing is simple and fun, not some
grind through stuff that doesn't matter.  If we clean this up now, we will
again prove that this community cannot focus on important things.  The
casual observer will take a look at what we talk about and wonder why we
are not addressing the top 9 takeaways from ApacheCon.  Is this really
more important than fixing some NPE or transpiler issue that will affect
many of our customers?  Usually, late in a release cycle, the only changes
should be stop-ship.

IMO, best time to clean this up is right after the release when we flood
commits@ with merging the release branch back to develop and master. Then
220 header changes will not make significant noise.

My 2 cents,
-Alex

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files

piotrz
In reply to this post by Justin Mclean
+1 for fixing this and get rid of one licensing issue for the next release. We have enough long threads about licensing stuff - one less issue = one less problem. :)

Piotr
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files

Alex Harui-2
In reply to this post by Justin Mclean


On 5/23/17, 3:17 PM, "Justin Mclean" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>> Agreed. Justin is good at catching licensing issues, and he seems
>>willing
>> to fix them himself
>
>Yep I’ll willing to fix this I was just unsure of the reason why the
>different headers existed and if there was a reason other than copy /
>paste issue
>
>I also come across this  header in [1] which may perhaps be a concern? I
>gather it's related to iOS/Android native extensions.
>
>Thanks,
>Justin
>
>1. ./flexJS/include/FlashRuntimeExtensions.h

I cannot find this file in my working copies.  Where did it come from?

-Alex

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files

Josh Tynjala
In reply to this post by Alex Harui-2
Alex, by continuing to block Justin, you're making this exactly the kind of
grind that you've said we should avoid. If you just said "okay cool, make
the change!" that's painless and won't discourage any potential release
managers.

- Josh

On May 23, 2017 9:52 PM, "Alex Harui" <[hidden email]> wrote:



On 5/23/17, 1:03 PM, "Christofer Dutz" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Hi Alex,
>
>I disagree … if things like this are found, why do them later instead of
>just fixing things and not have to deal with them again?

Because we want to demonstrate that releasing is simple and fun, not some
grind through stuff that doesn't matter.  If we clean this up now, we will
again prove that this community cannot focus on important things.  The
casual observer will take a look at what we talk about and wonder why we
are not addressing the top 9 takeaways from ApacheCon.  Is this really
more important than fixing some NPE or transpiler issue that will affect
many of our customers?  Usually, late in a release cycle, the only changes
should be stop-ship.

IMO, best time to clean this up is right after the release when we flood
commits@ with merging the release branch back to develop and master. Then
220 header changes will not make significant noise.

My 2 cents,
-Alex
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files

Josh Tynjala
In reply to this post by Alex Harui-2
If it's ANE-related, it seems likely that it's from an AIR SDK.

- Josh


On May 23, 2017 10:47 PM, "Alex Harui" <[hidden email]> wrote:



On 5/23/17, 3:17 PM, "Justin Mclean" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>> Agreed. Justin is good at catching licensing issues, and he seems
>>willing
>> to fix them himself
>
>Yep I’ll willing to fix this I was just unsure of the reason why the
>different headers existed and if there was a reason other than copy /
>paste issue
>
>I also come across this  header in [1] which may perhaps be a concern? I
>gather it's related to iOS/Android native extensions.
>
>Thanks,
>Justin
>
>1. ./flexJS/include/FlashRuntimeExtensions.h

I cannot find this file in my working copies.  Where did it come from?

-Alex
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files

Christofer Dutz
The thing is, I can’t see that file in my repo …

I think you only have this when installing a Flex(JS)SDK with AIR. So eventually if you ran an Ant build, this is probably there.

Chris


Am 24.05.17, 15:39 schrieb "Josh Tynjala" <[hidden email]>:

    If it's ANE-related, it seems likely that it's from an AIR SDK.
   
    - Josh
   
   
    On May 23, 2017 10:47 PM, "Alex Harui" <[hidden email]> wrote:
   
   
   
    On 5/23/17, 3:17 PM, "Justin Mclean" <[hidden email]> wrote:
   
    >Hi,
    >
    >> Agreed. Justin is good at catching licensing issues, and he seems
    >>willing
    >> to fix them himself
    >
    >Yep I’ll willing to fix this I was just unsure of the reason why the
    >different headers existed and if there was a reason other than copy /
    >paste issue
    >
    >I also come across this  header in [1] which may perhaps be a concern? I
    >gather it's related to iOS/Android native extensions.
    >
    >Thanks,
    >Justin
    >
    >1. ./flexJS/include/FlashRuntimeExtensions.h
   
    I cannot find this file in my working copies.  Where did it come from?
   
    -Alex
   

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files

Alex Harui-2
In reply to this post by Josh Tynjala
Technically, I am not blocking.  I am saying that there is a better time
to do this change and we need to focus on the big picture and spend energy
on things that matter.  This topic could have been as simple as an email
from Justin that said "hey, I just noticed we have inconsistent headers.
I would like to clean that up after the release and branch merges."

Instead, the email thread was several posts long already by the time I had
to read through it.  Harbs put down his work to at least wonder why one of
his files was named.  Then there will be the time for Justin to actually
make these changes.  Who is volunteering to review the change?  As PMC
members we are all supposed to be watching the commits.

And you get more of what you encourage.  I am trying to encourage folks to
take stuff that isn't that important and find it early by watching the
commits, or put it off to the next release.  That has been the advice of
several experienced Apache folks.  I'm not making this up.  If you want to
encourage folks to nitpick at the end of release cycles, well then I can
only tell you from my personal experience that after several releases it
discourages me from wanting to be a release manager.  Should we encourage
all of us to nitpick more at the end of release cycles?  Would that make
more of you want to be a release manager?  You can't look at this one
change in isolation.

Every day, I am trying to marshall the limited resources we have to find a
way to bring in more contributors in hopes we can get some FlexJS apps
into production in hopes that Adobe will continue to pay me to work on
this stuff full-time.  Making us review 220 headers is not going to bring
in more contributors.  Getting our examples to work right, making progress
on the top 9 things from ApacheCon, helping Harbs and Yishay get their app
into production will all serve the community better.  Instead, Yishay got
stuck yesterday because I have not found the time to fix a bug in the TLF
branch.  Instead, we are discussing headers, trace statements, inlining
constants and empty constructors.

So, if you guys want more nitpicking, then go ahead and encourage it.  I
won't veto the change.  But I'll be even less motivated to be the RM in
the future.

-Alex

On 5/24/17, 6:34 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Alex, by continuing to block Justin, you're making this exactly the kind
>of
>grind that you've said we should avoid. If you just said "okay cool, make
>the change!" that's painless and won't discourage any potential release
>managers.
>
>- Josh
>
>On May 23, 2017 9:52 PM, "Alex Harui" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
>On 5/23/17, 1:03 PM, "Christofer Dutz" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>Hi Alex,
>>
>>I disagree … if things like this are found, why do them later instead of
>>just fixing things and not have to deal with them again?
>
>Because we want to demonstrate that releasing is simple and fun, not some
>grind through stuff that doesn't matter.  If we clean this up now, we will
>again prove that this community cannot focus on important things.  The
>casual observer will take a look at what we talk about and wonder why we
>are not addressing the top 9 takeaways from ApacheCon.  Is this really
>more important than fixing some NPE or transpiler issue that will affect
>many of our customers?  Usually, late in a release cycle, the only changes
>should be stop-ship.
>
>IMO, best time to clean this up is right after the release when we flood
>commits@ with merging the release branch back to develop and master. Then
>220 header changes will not make significant noise.
>
>My 2 cents,
>-Alex

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FlexJS] odd license headers on some files

Josh Tynjala
Alex,

If Justin were proposing these changes to an RC, I would strongly agree
with you that it should wait. However, I thought we all agreed that Last
Call was the better time to get things in that we want to get in. It feels
to me like you're moving the goal posts to now say that it should wait
until after the release. I was frustrated by Justin proposing changes in
the RC before, but as we're still in Last Call, I'm going to defend him.

I understand that you think licensing details aren't as important as other
things, so it's cool if you don't want to focus on that part as we get
close to a release. However, that's the itch Justin seems to want to
scratch, and I don't think it's fair of you to tell him what he should
think is important. It should take little more than a glance for the PMC to
review his changes. You often bring up how we should trust the intent of a
contributor, and you could trust that he knows what to change for licensing
since that's something he knows well. Looking at all 220 headers
individually seems unnecessary.

> Instead, we are discussing headers, trace statements, inlining
constants and empty constructors.

I don't see why we can't start thinking about things for the next release
as we're finishing up the current release. Plus, ApacheCon just happened,
and we're all buzzing with ideas after meeting together, so the mailing
list activity is up. Let's not discourage the extra enthusiasm from our
contributors right now. This enthusiasm is something good for potential new
contributors to see.

- Josh

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Alex Harui <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Technically, I am not blocking.  I am saying that there is a better time
> to do this change and we need to focus on the big picture and spend energy
> on things that matter.  This topic could have been as simple as an email
> from Justin that said "hey, I just noticed we have inconsistent headers.
> I would like to clean that up after the release and branch merges."
>
> Instead, the email thread was several posts long already by the time I had
> to read through it.  Harbs put down his work to at least wonder why one of
> his files was named.  Then there will be the time for Justin to actually
> make these changes.  Who is volunteering to review the change?  As PMC
> members we are all supposed to be watching the commits.
>
> And you get more of what you encourage.  I am trying to encourage folks to
> take stuff that isn't that important and find it early by watching the
> commits, or put it off to the next release.  That has been the advice of
> several experienced Apache folks.  I'm not making this up.  If you want to
> encourage folks to nitpick at the end of release cycles, well then I can
> only tell you from my personal experience that after several releases it
> discourages me from wanting to be a release manager.  Should we encourage
> all of us to nitpick more at the end of release cycles?  Would that make
> more of you want to be a release manager?  You can't look at this one
> change in isolation.
>
> Every day, I am trying to marshall the limited resources we have to find a
> way to bring in more contributors in hopes we can get some FlexJS apps
> into production in hopes that Adobe will continue to pay me to work on
> this stuff full-time.  Making us review 220 headers is not going to bring
> in more contributors.  Getting our examples to work right, making progress
> on the top 9 things from ApacheCon, helping Harbs and Yishay get their app
> into production will all serve the community better.  Instead, Yishay got
> stuck yesterday because I have not found the time to fix a bug in the TLF
> branch.  Instead, we are discussing headers, trace statements, inlining
> constants and empty constructors.
>
> So, if you guys want more nitpicking, then go ahead and encourage it.  I
> won't veto the change.  But I'll be even less motivated to be the RM in
> the future.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 5/24/17, 6:34 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >Alex, by continuing to block Justin, you're making this exactly the kind
> >of
> >grind that you've said we should avoid. If you just said "okay cool, make
> >the change!" that's painless and won't discourage any potential release
> >managers.
> >
> >- Josh
> >
> >On May 23, 2017 9:52 PM, "Alex Harui" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >On 5/23/17, 1:03 PM, "Christofer Dutz" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >>Hi Alex,
> >>
> >>I disagree … if things like this are found, why do them later instead of
> >>just fixing things and not have to deal with them again?
> >
> >Because we want to demonstrate that releasing is simple and fun, not some
> >grind through stuff that doesn't matter.  If we clean this up now, we will
> >again prove that this community cannot focus on important things.  The
> >casual observer will take a look at what we talk about and wonder why we
> >are not addressing the top 9 takeaways from ApacheCon.  Is this really
> >more important than fixing some NPE or transpiler issue that will affect
> >many of our customers?  Usually, late in a release cycle, the only changes
> >should be stop-ship.
> >
> >IMO, best time to clean this up is right after the release when we flood
> >commits@ with merging the release branch back to develop and master. Then
> >220 header changes will not make significant noise.
> >
> >My 2 cents,
> >-Alex
>
>
12