Greg, thanks for letting us know, very appreciated I think your support can be very useful as always. Will let you know if you can help on any area :)
Thanks Carlos El mar., 19 nov. 2019 a las 20:23, Greg Dove (<[email protected]>) escribió: > Just chiming in from my perspective... I am definitely keen to help out > with testing on the maven changes (I meant to say so earlier, I've been > distracted, focused on other things recently, sorry). > I think these changes make things a lot simpler and cleaner for maven. I > see a lot less maven profiles now, which should be less daunting for > someone new. And I can see more visual cues for things like skipped tests > in the console output (windows) which I assume might be related to the > changes. > > I used to be an ant user because it was what I knew, and I do still use ant > elsewhere, but I would consider myself more of a maven person now for > Flex/Royale, and that is only through exposure to it gained here. > > I don't know anything about the release steps, but I will try to learn how > to test these and see if I can help with testing this also for maven > changes. > > +2 cents: > If supporting a range of build technologies for SDK users implies the need > for using the same technologies to build the SDK artifacts/SDK themselves > then obviously we need to continue to do that. But if it was not necessary, > then I don't understand the argument that having multiple approaches to > build the artifacts/working SDK is advantageous. I would expect that > keeping this simple would be more appealing to new contributors, because > the focus could be on the SDK itself and not on build variation maintenance > across multiple ways to build. I can't imagine that if people are truly > interested in contributing, that the choice of build technology is a hurdle > to doing so. So long as the setup instructions are simple and it works, > then people can largely ignore it (particularly if it is unfamiliar to > them) and focus on the code (which is the point). That's kind of how I tend > to approach any open source projects, but I make no claim that I am > representative of others. I'm just throwing this out there as a thinking > point, not a discussion point. For now I assume we have status quo on the > ant and maven builds being equally important. > > > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 6:47 AM Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > ok. we can then avoid reverting. Maybe we can wait to restore JGit and > > Wagon, since probably in the process we finally get to not need it > anymore. > > > > I'll plan tomorrow with Chris and see what's the steps to do. Then I'll > > share here to get consensus before starting to work on it. We need to be > > safe that we're working on the right path. > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > El mar., 19 nov. 2019 a las 17:45, Alex Harui (<[email protected] > >) > > escribió: > > > > > I still haven't found time to review the many commits in these PRs as > > > higher priority things keep coming up. I'm pretty sure JGit is an > issue. > > > I think Wagon as well. But there could be others. > > > > > > I don't think reverting is required if it is faster if Carlos and > > > Christofer are going to take the time to test and fix the CI release > > steps > > > against these changes. That's because the nobody except the next RM is > > > currently blocked by the changes. The net result of the CI steps > should > > be > > > the same set of files in 0.9.6 with different version names. If you > can > > > figure out how to run against the 0.9.6 tag you should get the exact > same > > > binaries, but if you run against the head you'll have some differences > > > against 0.9.6 but if you test local builds on Mac and Win you should > find > > > any other binary reproducibility issues that zlika fixed that Maven may > > not > > > have picked up. > > > > > > The argument about changes getting stale are a problem for anyone. > > > Hopefully Christofer is working against a branch and not a fork, and > the > > > usual branch merging practices need to be used to resync before > pushing. > > > > > > My 2 cents, > > > -Alex > > > > > > On 11/19/19, 8:30 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Piotr, > > > > > > if you refer to the plan will do, still didn't share. I want to go > > > piece by > > > piece to avoid talking of many things at the same time. > > > > > > I just talked with Chris, and I can revert his PRs, and then we'll > > > re-revert again on his repo. > > > Or we can left all as is and just restore JGit, if there's nothing > > > more to > > > do. > > > > > > I'll wait to hear from you and Alex to do this. > > > Next with that solved, I'll propose a plan to do in Chris's royale > > > fork. At > > > that time what I want is people agree that in doing that and making > > it > > > work > > > we'll all be happy and will merge it since it will be something > > working > > > when build and when release. That's the target. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Carlos Rovira > > http://about.me/carlosrovira > > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
