On 3/18/20, 9:12 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <[email protected]> wrote:
We could use the maven-invoker-plugin to execute a number of Ant builds.
This way we could ensure the Ant tasks work correctly.
Would that be an option?
Of course it is an option, but I do not like it. IMO, invoker is just a
verbose Maven way of doing what Ant does. As I just posted, IMO we still need
to run Ant at some point, so why not use Ant for scripting? That's what it is
meant for.
Please, can we just try to fix the CI steps? Add the noPush and skipGPG
params. Tell me where I can read what the steps are.
-Alex
Chris
Am 18.03.20, 16:54 schrieb "Carlos Rovira" <[email protected]>:
Hi Chris,
thanks for joining the conversation :)
About "creating artifacts two times", I think we should just create one
with Maven *for the release process*, while ensuring ANT continues to
work
as expected, since many people rely on it. So maybe the solution is:
0.- we need to fix the Maven distribution for IDE compilation (this is
independent of the release process, since is needed)
---
1.- make all the release process using the 2 steps you said
2.- check the ant build by adding a step that generates it and then
check
agains the reproducible maven build distribution
(for this we need to find a way to check that distribution is generating
the same SDK as ANT, can that be done?)
For me that means removing lots of problems and ease the overall process
Make this sense?
El mié., 18 mar. 2020 a las 16:37, Christofer Dutz (<
[email protected]>) escribió:
> Ok ... as it sort of feels silly to not respond to this list, but
read it
> ... here goes ;-)
>
> Shouldn't the metric be: "does it bring the project forward?" and less
> "how much time did it cost to get here?"
> In PLC4X I recently deleted code that took me more than 3/4 of a year
to
> write in more than full-time work. No commit felt better as it
improved
> things greatly and what we replaced it with, was a giant leap for the
> project.
>
> So if you folks could explain what the refactoring I did some time ago
> broke ...
>
> And perhaps let me explain the reason for doing it in the first place:
> I really loved and still love the productivity I had with Apache
Flex. I
> was consumed with counting and shifting bits, however knowing I need a
> frontend eventually. I was hoping that Royale was going to be that
option.
> However I did notice with worries how long it took to get new
releases out
> the door and hearing rumors about how many people invested so much
time and
> some still failed. So I offered my assistance and had a look at the
build.
> Being an expert in this particular area, I did notice some
configuration
> "problems" or "misconfigurations", which I fixed. Usually if you need
> something special for some reason it's a good practice to write a
comment
> to it in order for the person viewing the code to know the
implications and
> reasoning behind this.
>
> You can't expect every newcomer to parse the last few years of
discussions
> before contributing.
>
> Another reason was that I remembered that one of the "objections" to
Maven
> was, that Maven couldn't do reproducible builds. So as the latest
versions
> of the core maven plugins were updated to support this, I thought,
perhaps
> this way we could get a stable release process.
>
> From a Maven point of view the updated Maven build is now rock-solid.
> Releasing it would require two timely separated sessions and 3
commands in
> total and would be done on the developer machine.
> 1) Create the release branch
> 2) Prepare and do the release
>
> The issues you folks were having ... I can't really confirm them ...
Just
> to day I did a check of how many Apache project use which build tool.
The
> result was that 61,9% use Maven (4,2% use Ant) ... if Maven really
was that
> broken, I guess we would be hearing a lot more from the other
projects. And
> I am not hearing any complaints at all.
>
> If the distributions are currently not 100% match of the Ant ones, I
would
> like to help to make them one. Just tell me what the difference is and
> it'll be done in no-time. However it's hard to fix something you
don't know
> what's broken.
>
> Also do I not quite understand why a jar used in Ant has to be built
by
> Ant ... in general the jars should be identical. I know that maven
saves
> some additional information in the pom (Actually storing the pom and
the
> values properties had when it was built in the jar, which I think is a
> great thing for reproducibility). Perhaps disabling this could make
them
> identical. And as soon as that's the case, I don't really see the
point in
> building them twice. Do you agree?
>
> And no worries, I am not interested in joining the project again ... I
> want to help the project be able to get releases out because I would
like
> to use them. After that's done I'm happy to disappear again, if you
wish
> that I do.
>
> So far all the projects I have helped with their builds are firing out
> releases like machine-guns ... let me help you folks do so too.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 18.03.20, 12:43 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki"
<[email protected]>:
>
> 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
> >> > >
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfcab155a339f489dbf2b08d7cb572fba%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637201447644039384&sdata=leozIkcJAUyXngghf2wTlbR0CsZq3cEELDsZrD8uEc4%3D&reserved=0
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > Piotr Zarzycki
> >> >
> >> > Patreon:
*https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfcab155a339f489dbf2b08d7cb572fba%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637201447644039384&sdata=NJFoIIrl5jF4fHfWO07P1IOkXaqWeNSKImuLDMMuf5s%3D&reserved=0
> >> >
<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfcab155a339f489dbf2b08d7cb572fba%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637201447644039384&sdata=NJFoIIrl5jF4fHfWO07P1IOkXaqWeNSKImuLDMMuf5s%3D&reserved=0>*
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Carlos Rovira
> >>
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfcab155a339f489dbf2b08d7cb572fba%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637201447644039384&sdata=leozIkcJAUyXngghf2wTlbR0CsZq3cEELDsZrD8uEc4%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> > Patreon:
*https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfcab155a339f489dbf2b08d7cb572fba%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637201447644039384&sdata=NJFoIIrl5jF4fHfWO07P1IOkXaqWeNSKImuLDMMuf5s%3D&reserved=0
> >
<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfcab155a339f489dbf2b08d7cb572fba%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637201447644039384&sdata=NJFoIIrl5jF4fHfWO07P1IOkXaqWeNSKImuLDMMuf5s%3D&reserved=0>*
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon:
*https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfcab155a339f489dbf2b08d7cb572fba%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637201447644039384&sdata=NJFoIIrl5jF4fHfWO07P1IOkXaqWeNSKImuLDMMuf5s%3D&reserved=0
>
<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfcab155a339f489dbf2b08d7cb572fba%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637201447644039384&sdata=NJFoIIrl5jF4fHfWO07P1IOkXaqWeNSKImuLDMMuf5s%3D&reserved=0>*
>
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfcab155a339f489dbf2b08d7cb572fba%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637201447644039384&sdata=leozIkcJAUyXngghf2wTlbR0CsZq3cEELDsZrD8uEc4%3D&reserved=0
