On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 10:14, Philippe Mouawad
<philippe.moua...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 10:57 AM sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 09:32, Vladimir Sitnikov
> > <sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > sebb> How are you going to prove that the Gradle functionality is
> > > sufficient?
> > >
> > > Are you aware of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem ?
> > >
> > > Rice> all non-trivial, semantic properties of programs are undecidable
> >
> > So why bother with any unit tests?
> >
> > > One can't really prove anything about Gradle build.
> > > Note: in exactly the same way, Ant build is not provable either.
> >
> > The Ant build has been proved by long use.
> >
>
> And we see it is not perfect
> And we see Gradle could bring improvements and new developer adoption
>
>
> > The Gradle build needs to generate equivalent outputs for the various
> > functions, otherwise it is not a valid replacement.
> >
>
> I guess what Vladimir is saying is that Gradle can provide same features in
> a different way (built-in)
> Maybe Vladimir you could clarify which built-in feature would be used as a
> replacement for:
>
>    - the release related features
>    - the sonar integration features
>    - in summary, all parts you didn't migrate
>
>
>
> > > > > I don't really get feedback on Gradle,
> > > >
> > > sebb> No idea what that means.
> > >
> > > Look:
> > > 1) I have a Gradle-based build that loads into IDE, and that does run
> > some
> > > of the tests (e.g. :src:components 265 tests completed, 11 failed, 1
> > > skipped)
> >
>
>
> >
> > > 2) I might need to put adjustments here and here, however the build code
> > is
> > > pretty much complete
> >
> > In your opinion.
> > But this needs to be repeatable by others.
> >
>
>
> I'll try to test it ASAP
>
> >
> > > That means now it is a good time to try gradle build script and/or
> > provide
> > > feedback if the code opens in IDE, if it builds, if it runs, etc.
> > >
> > > 3) Of course "Maven pom" generation is missing (and other release-related
> > > steps), however I don't really see why everybody else should wait for
> > "100%
> > > feature complete Gradle script" before trying it out.
> >
> > Of course people can try it out at any stage.
> >
> I find it reasonable that you, we provide feedback on this PR by testing it
> in different setups and IDEs.
> That's what Vladimir is asking for I guess.
>
>
>
> >
> > However it's not valid as a replacement for Ant until it can be shown
> > to provide all the necessary functionality.
> > That seems self-evident to me.
> >
> > > What I see is theoretical discussions like "oh, is Gradle capable of
> > > downloading JavaFX?"
> > > Of course it can be configured to download whatever we need.
> >
> > My question about JavaFX was rather different:
> >
> > > sebb> As already noted, voting is not the same as testing.
> > >
> > > I do whatever testing I think it is worth doing, and I leave the door
> > open
> > > for the ones who care to execute extra tests.
> >
> > I think you need to publish the tests so others can run them and
> > extend them as necessary.
> >
>
> Which tests ?

I was referring to the statement above:

> I do whatever testing I think it is worth doing

> AFAICT, Vladimir provided the steps to run gradle and he asked for feedback
> from us right ?

Yes, but AFAICT he implied that he was doing additional tests.

>
> > We would not accept a patch where the author said they had run unit
> > tests but would not provide them.
> >
>
> I don't think that's what Vladimir is saying.

Maybe not, but it's not clear to me from what he wrote.

>
> > > The rest are assumed to agree with the change.
> >
> > That's not how such changes should work.
> >
>
> In previous discussion, I think many of use voted +1 for a move to gradle
> provided no wall is faced

Yes.

But such a wall can only be discovered by testing that the Gradle
build does what it needs to do.

As I already wrote, I think it's unlikely that Gradle will prove
unable to provide what we need, but that needs proving.

> >
> > > sebb>Gradle can surely be configured to work with the current directory
> > > layout
> > >
> > > It can.
> >
> > Then please do so.
> >
>
> Although I agree with sebb that not touching layout makes it easier for us
> to study and work progressively with this migration.
> I am not sure we should keep layout AS-IS.

I was suggesting that the layout can be changed later.

> For example, if we had chosen to move to Maven, we would have modified
> layout.

Probably, but I think it would have been sensible to change the layout
(and fix up Ant) separately.
One could then compare Ant with Maven to validate the outputs.

> @Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com>  is it mandatory to change
> layout ?
> What would we loose or have to do additionally if we don't touch it as
> least in first migration step:
> - First step IMU being provide all features of current build
> - Second step would be to change layout if there's a reason for it

Yes please!


>
> >
> > > At the same time, it makes no sense to follow that route.
> >
> > I have explained several times why it is sensible.
> >
> > > Vladimir> sebb>Get the Gradle build working with the current layout.
> > > Vladimir>
> > > Vladimir> That's what I always follow.
> > > sebb> AFAICT the Gradle build you are proposing requires lots of changes
> > to
> > > sebb>file locations.
> > >
> > > I'm afraid, I quoted the wrong sentence.
> > > My intention was to quote as below:
> > >
> > > sebb> Don't change more than is absolutely necessary.
> > >
> > > That's what I always follow.
> > >
> > > I do move files around, and I do that for a good reasons (e.g. see items
> > > under "provides several improvements").
> > > I try to move as little as it is possible, however my primary goal is
> > build
> > > sanity, while "keeping file layout" is not the top priority.
> >
> > Sorry, but that is not the minimum change needed to prove the Gradle build.
> >
> > We would not accept a patch that introduced new code and also changed
> > large amounts of indentation and space trimming at the same time.
> >
> > > Vladimir
> >

Reply via email to