Hi Alex

docs updates for Maven steps are here:

 https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki/Build-Apache-Royale-with-Maven



El mié., 18 mar. 2020 a las 17:12, Alex Harui (<[email protected]>)
escribió:

> First, thanks for cleaning up the Maven build.  I haven't looked at it in
> detail but if the profiles are better organized, that's great.
>
> We have different opinions on what will move the project forward.  The
> proposal I'm seeing takes us back a few years to when others couldn’t
> create a release.  It has nothing to do with Maven per-se.  The actual
> issues were that for some reason, the uploading process kept failing for
> people, and there folks sometimes had trouble getting setup.  The CI server
> gives us a known working configuration so we don't have to worry about
> setup issues on the RM's computer.  It has a side benefit that if the RM
> runs out of time, another person can take over.
>
> A Jar built for Ant must be tested by Ant before putting the artifacts up
> for a vote.  So, you must have Ant and use it at some point in the release
> process.  Also, since we want to make sure that there is a working Ant
> script to build an IDE compatible release, it is best to use that Ant
> script to create the artifacts, in order to prove that it works.
>
> And, I've written this many times, if we need to support some third build
> system, I expect we would use that build system to build the artifacts for
> that system.
>
> Getting the Maven changes to work for CI should be as simple as
> re-introducing the noPush and skipGPG options.  But I would know more if I
> could find the current instructions on how to build the artifacts for
> Maven.  Where is that now documented?
>
> -Alex
>
> On 3/18/20, 8:37 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>     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&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb645a795c0b7436c632c08d7cb525233%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637201426743097976&amp;sdata=jntOAxG3gWC1G6%2BdmIjQrR2cj%2BJzv3AOQyeAE6B4cjU%3D&amp;reserved=0
>         >> > >
>         >> >
>         >> >
>         >> > --
>         >> >
>         >> > Piotr Zarzycki
>         >> >
>         >> > Patreon: *
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb645a795c0b7436c632c08d7cb525233%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637201426743097976&amp;sdata=4zgoM3oKO7ZSDBMbEjAQCKvck9Tel%2FUrZ779AMLkTiQ%3D&amp;reserved=0
>         >> > <
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb645a795c0b7436c632c08d7cb525233%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637201426743097976&amp;sdata=4zgoM3oKO7ZSDBMbEjAQCKvck9Tel%2FUrZ779AMLkTiQ%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >*
>         >> >
>         >>
>         >>
>         >> --
>         >> Carlos Rovira
>         >>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb645a795c0b7436c632c08d7cb525233%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637201426743097976&amp;sdata=jntOAxG3gWC1G6%2BdmIjQrR2cj%2BJzv3AOQyeAE6B4cjU%3D&amp;reserved=0
>         >>
>         >
>         >
>         > --
>         >
>         > Piotr Zarzycki
>         >
>         > Patreon: *
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb645a795c0b7436c632c08d7cb525233%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637201426743107970&amp;sdata=LiB4Gl1fkwdUCQMU8Uo2LdkU07xqRrNH7cC86qHIjOU%3D&amp;reserved=0
>         > <
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb645a795c0b7436c632c08d7cb525233%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637201426743107970&amp;sdata=LiB4Gl1fkwdUCQMU8Uo2LdkU07xqRrNH7cC86qHIjOU%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >*
>         >
>
>
>         --
>
>         Piotr Zarzycki
>
>         Patreon: *
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb645a795c0b7436c632c08d7cb525233%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637201426743107970&amp;sdata=LiB4Gl1fkwdUCQMU8Uo2LdkU07xqRrNH7cC86qHIjOU%3D&amp;reserved=0
>         <
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb645a795c0b7436c632c08d7cb525233%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637201426743107970&amp;sdata=LiB4Gl1fkwdUCQMU8Uo2LdkU07xqRrNH7cC86qHIjOU%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >*
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Reply via email to