Btw. I truly doubt that it would be bigger than time which was invested in
building this whole release process.

śr., 18 mar 2020 o 12:41 Piotr Zarzycki <[email protected]>
napisał(a):

> Carlos,
>
> Why it is so huge effort ? What was broken so much that you are talking
> about huge effort ?
>
> śr., 18 mar 2020 o 12:37 Carlos Rovira <[email protected]>
> napisał(a):
>
>> Hi Piotr,
>>
>> as I responded before, I think that will be a huge task, in effort and
>> time, and a task that can be easily broken again as any other one
>> introduces new changes, what is something will happen for sure as we
>> evolve. So what I'm offering is my time to be used in a way that can allow
>> us to have a more reliable workflow. If I work on trying to fix as it's
>> now, I probably will not succeed since I already tried for several hours
>> and days (you can check emails around 19 or 20th Nov I think), and nothing
>> of my tries could make a difference. Instead, I'm think taking a big
>> different approach can make a difference. I can be wrong, but in that
>> case,
>> we'll know for sure that the way to go is the current one.
>>
>>
>> El mié., 18 mar. 2020 a las 12:05, Piotr Zarzycki (<
>> [email protected]>) escribió:
>>
>> > Carlos,
>> >
>> > In the other ways you are not going to fix current steps and release new
>> > version of SDK ?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > śr., 18 mar 2020 o 10:39 Carlos Rovira <[email protected]>
>> > napisał(a):
>> >
>> > > 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
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Piotr Zarzycki
>> >
>> > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
>> > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Carlos Rovira
>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>


-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*

Reply via email to