[Potlatch-dev] P2 versions

[Dave Stubbs]

On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> wrote:
> Nop wrote:
>
>> As the initialization of drop-down boxes did not work in the
>> recommended version, I downloaded the .swf from the public alpha
>> version and it does work there.
>>
>> I also noted that the alpha .swf is considerably smaller.
>>
>> So my questions  are:
>> - What is the difference between the .swf recommended in the wiki
>> (http://random.dev.openstreetmap.org/potlatch2/potlatch2.swf) and the
>> .swf on the alpha test site?
>> - Which one should I use?
>> - is there a way to tell the version from the .swf file or from within P2?
>
> random.dev.openstreetmap.org automatically pulls down the source every half
> hour or so (not sure of exact interval, Dave would know), builds a new .swf,
> and puts it up. So it's guaranteed to be the latest code.
>
> The alpha at geowiki.com is manually compiled and uploaded when I think it'd
> be a good idea and/or remember. I may deploy files individually here (for
> example, I've not updated mapfeatures.xml until we get the preset icons
> sorted).
>
> The random.dev.osm.org instance is compiled with the debug flags enabled, so
> that you can monitor the Flash logfile and see any information being chucked
> out. The geowiki.com instance is compiled without the debug flags, which
> makes the .swf a bunch smaller.
>
> The dropdown box bug is one which we've not been able to nail down yet. One
> possibility that springs to mind is that I probably compiled the geowiki.com
> instance with Flex 3.0, whereas I'm guessing the random.dev.osm.org instance
> is compiled with Flex 3.5: it may be a difference between the two. (The Flex
> framework is wondrous in many ways but it can be awfully erratic.) I'll have
> a go at compiling with 3.5 later today and uploading to geowiki, and we can
> see if it's made a difference.
>

random.dev.osm.org is compiled with 3.3.0, and supposedly without the
debug flags. On the other hand the Flex compiler seems capable of
compiling the exact same code (not a single byte changed), and ending
up with a different sized binary at the end (only by about 10 bytes,
but still...)

Dave