Hi all and thanks for your responses: @greg, yes the plan I point is to do research to try a new way and see where we go. At the end, we don't get it, it will be our responsibility and our time.
@yishay, I think you state a concrete but very real issue. I think the work done by Alex was amazing (no doubt here), but I'm afraid, as much as it pains me to say it, that it does not solve the problem you state and the proof is that only Piotr tried to use the process and it was not easy and then when fixing other things, it has broken with some ease. @om, as I said in the initial email. There's no war anymore between Maven and ANT. We all want both, and I'm using both when developing Royale to test. As well I continually know more about how things are done in Maven. My position is just that we need to separate concerns. One thing is to have both systems for developers and user to use (Maven and ANT), but my point is that Releasing should just involve Maven, since is more suite for releasing at Apache and CIs, and ensure Ant continue working as expected. So no one wants one over the other, or remove one of them. That's not the problem anymore. @piotr, I think your experience is very important, since you were the only one that do the full process. My guess is that removing ANT from the release process will remove completely all the pain with such complex process and we all be able release from our own machines without having problems with complex task, uploading artifacts to a.o and more. We just need to ensure ANT still can be build exactly as before, and continue to produce the same. So in the end, we can stick with the old process, or try another different approach to it build over standards. That means Chris and I will be using our times not yours. If we succeed, your test of the new approach will need to ensure all the prerequisites and be lot more simpler. If we don't get to that and fail in the process, just announce here and we can continue in the old process. That's my proposal (that will need to be consensuated first here and then with Chris) Thanks El mié., 18 mar. 2020 a las 8:14, Alex Harui (<[email protected]>) escribió: > > > On 3/17/20, 11:37 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <[email protected]> wrote: > > My 2 cents: > > I don't think we need to go back to the Ant vs Maven discussion. If > the > Maven build/stage/release scripts works flawlessly, an Ant task can > simply > call it. There is no reason both cannot be worked on continuously. > In the > same way, if Maven users want, they can call Ant scripts as needed. > > Why do both camps want the other way to go away? > > I don't want one to go away. I want to use Maven for what it is good for > and Ant for what it is good for. > > For example, we also publish to NPM as part of the release. There is a > node.js script that gets called from the Ant script during the release > process. The node.js script is a black box as far as the Ant script is > concerned. > > That said, Carlos if you think you can get a release done with just > Maven, > please go ahead and give it a shot. From what I remember, the Maven > part > of the build/release was the issue and not the Ant portions. We all > would > love to see improvements there. > > Alex, you say that Carlos did not work in the trenches during the > release > process, but are objecting (I think, if I understand your email > correctly) > to him wanting to work now. That seem contradictory, IMHO. > > I'm saying that if Carlos/Chris go back to the Maven Release Plugin > process, it will likely bring us back to the same problems we created the > CI steps to work around. So why go through all of that again? > > Like Piotr just posted, Carlos should get in the trenches and get the CI > steps to work with the new Maven poms. Not acknowledging that there have > been past problems using the process they propose is going to result in > more time wasted. > > -Alex > > > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
