On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:41 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> Hi Om, > > I'm not sure what your definition of "direct dependency" is, but we > already have Maven stuff in the source package so we can directly publish > Maven artifacts to Maven central. What is wrong with having NPM stuff in > the source package as well? > If something went wrong with an npm release, we will need a new release of the Source and Binary artifacts. That takes a much longer time. We should avoid a scenario like the dependency between the SDK and the Installer, which sometimes requires a new release of SDK for pushing out changes to the Installer. > > The plan is currently to run the Maven release steps, which will create a > set of 3 source artifacts (one per-repo), then run an Ant script that > turns those 3 source artifacts into one source artifact that we vote on, > along with two IDE-friendly binary artifacts (with and without SWF > support), and dozens of Maven SWCs and JARs, and, as the scripts are/were > currently setup, the two IDE-friendly binary artifacts should have been > valid NPM artifacts. Once the vote is approved, the Maven artifacts go to > Maven Central, the IDE-friendly artifacts go to dist.a.o, and > theoretically, those same artifacts get published to NPM (unmodified). > And that can all be scripted. > I don't get the part where it has to be unmodified. Right now, if I need to change the package.json, I need to push a fix, wait for a nightly build before I can test it out. If we do it my way, composing the npm package is a completely separate process without having to wait for sdk changes to be propagated. > > I don't know NPM that well, so maybe something does have to change in > package.json before actual publication, but if not, I don't understand why > the RM should need to do more than just run "npm publish" once or twice. > IMO, it is sort of cheating to modify package.json or any other files > after a vote on those files to create the NPM artifacts. > Only if package.json is part of the source artifact. I don't see the need to have package.json file and other npm related scripts in the source or binary artifacts. > > Also, I think I proved that the Ant script on the CI server can create > valid NPM artifacts for nightly builds. I would think we would want that > instead of needing some manual step to make nightly builds available for > NPM users. > Anything that is manual can be scripted. My goal is to make an "publish to npm" script available that can be tacked on to the current release process. > > It sounds like you are basically reverting all of the NPM work I just did. > :-( I'm sorry about that. I was not paying attention to your commits in this area. What exactly am I reverting? The stuff I am doing right now is in addition to what you have already done. > How were you planning to provide nightly builds and not modify > approved sources to publish NPM artifacts? I sent a couple of emails about this a while ago. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/86253b3e04f138d7c4ed6f1769c2654da6d47b8ca10c88b7dc582d91@%3Cdev.royale.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/66e1ee3ce5ce0294b18913c83c794a8819893ba9bb73e77f55b5cfce@%3Cdev.royale.apache.org%3E I am yet to get to this part. But we need to sort off agree on a path before I can proceed. > I'm shutting down for tonight > so I'll pick this up in the morning. > > Thanks, > -Alex > > On 12/17/17, 11:42 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash > Muppirala" <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> > >wrote: > > > >> Om, > >> > >> One thing I'm confused about: When I read about NPM publishing [1], it > >> sounds like you can publish a folder of stuff (and/or a gzip of that > >> folder) and thus the binaries shouldn't need to be downloaded off of one > >> of our servers. But it looks like the old FlexJS script and now these > >> scripts are trying to download the binaries off of one of our servers. > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> -Alex > >> > >> [1] > >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.npm > >>js.com%2Fgetting-started%2Fpublishing-npm-packages& > data=02%7C01%7Caharui% > >>40adobe.com%7Cc45ced0b53984ddecf5208d545eb06c2% > 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c1 > >>78decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636491798101208728&sdata= > T3Ym%2BwQPX15EKsN7rWAZhtttSDv > >>KxYARMMi3KiZqTd4%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > >I am a bit unclear on your how you are thinking of publishing to npm. You > >want to simply publish the binary release artifact to npm? > > > >When will the properties in package.json be updated? When creating the > >binary artifact or when we are publishing to npm? > > > >In my mind, the release artifact should not contain any npm related stuff. > >As a release manager, I would like to download the release artifact, add > >in > >all the npm related stuff and then publish to npm. I am adding this logic > >into a script so that the release manager can simply run it as part of the > >release process. > > > >This way, we don't have a direct dependency between the royale codebase > >and > >the npm related stuff. > > > >Thanks, > >Om > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> On 12/17/17, 1:56 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash > >>Muppirala" > >> <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >I have pushed a few changes to my branch: > >> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > >> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co > >> >m%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fcommits%2Ffeature%2Fnpm- > >> scripts&data=02%7C01%7C > >> >aharui%40adobe.com%7Cd583a0036a204c481bde08d54599 > >> 0bde%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794 > >> >aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636491446017963669&sdata= > >> DhjL2mrknpft7aEadZpgXnaV > >> >g2w4AKcvSt8K1nQj9R4%3D&reserved=0 > >> >Can someone give it a look over before I merge it into develop? > >> > > >> >Once it gets merged into develop, I can test out the build from the > >> >lastSuccessfulBuild from the jenkins build. > >> > > >> >I've given the package a dummy name till we test it out so that we > >>don't > >> >accidentally push a build out. > >> > > >> >Thanks, > >> >Om > >> > >> > >
