Hi Alex, where is this thrown out? https://github.com/apache/royale-compiler/tree/develop/compiler-build-tools https://github.com/apache/royale-compiler/tree/develop/compiler-jburg-types
If you want to release them, all you need to do is go into that directory and run: mvn release:prepare mvn release:perform So as you see nothing is removed ... there is no need to have them in the same reactor, if that's what you are referring to. And the argument to not try something again which had failed in the past is sort of a strange argument for a project discussing on going 1.0 I bet a lot of stuff is in Royale that didn't work before and now works. It's not that we are doing it the same way we did before. If we did, I agree that would be a stupid waste of time. But you didn't answer my question on where it is written that you must build jars used by Ant with Ant. Would you mind giving an answer on that? Chris PS: I've got a PR almost finished gotta do some $stuff for my company first. Am 18.03.20, 18:59 schrieb "Alex Harui" <[email protected]>: I'm trying to avoid having Carlos and Chris spend a lot of time tossing out something that worked and replacing it with something that didn't work in the past. How often is that a good decision? What makes it hard is that there is a chance it will work for them, and then it won't work for others. That is the lesson we learned the hard way. So we won't know how good it is until someone else tries it and runs into the same issues we had before. Note that the two people who have actually cut a release want to just get the current process to work again. Everyone else is just talking from theory, not reality. And it will all be moot if we don't get the current process fixed and a release out ASAP. I only found build instructions at the wiki link that Carlos provided, not release instructions. It made me look at the royale-compiler pom and it appears that the compiler-build-tools and compiler-jburg-types project builds have been removed. So I am not clear on how to build those two artifacts with Maven should we need to change them in the future. This is not raising my level of confidence in their plans at all. It is not fair to toss out important things and then claim things are simpler. -Alex On 3/18/20, 10:25 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <[email protected]> wrote: Agreed. Just do it! You shouldn't need consensus here. If it's as much better as you claim it will be, I don't see anyone refusing to switch to the new process. However, if you insist on consensus, let this be my +1. However, someone else may want to try doing a release with the old process in the meantime. With that in mind, before you get started on the new process, you should ensure that the old one is not still broken from the recent Maven build changes. (It sounds like Chris is already trying to fix this, so great!) -- Josh Tynjala Bowler Hat LLC <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbowlerhat.dev&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Caaac0c3693294c72c62608d7cb614ad0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637201491043736972&sdata=p3GFZuKOAdosdIUUK6YQ7pyrQLAGCrdulrcyfAHUq%2FE%3D&reserved=0> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 9:50 AM OmPrakash Muppirala <[email protected]> wrote: > Carlos, Chris, > > There is nothing stopping you from building something from scratch. There > is no need to convince anyone. Please start committing. > > I think Alex and others have made their points clearly. I don't see a > reason to continue rehashing the same points over and over. > > As long as the current Ant based build/release is not broken, everyone > should be happy, or at least learn to live with it. > > That said, how can I help with your effort 😊? > > Thanks, > Om > > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 9:38 AM Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi Alex, > > > > El mié., 18 mar. 2020 a las 17:12, Alex Harui (<[email protected] > >) > > escribió: > > > > > The proposal I'm seeing takes us back a few years to when others > > couldn’t > > > create a release. > > > > > > As I posted in the other thread just a few minutes ago, it's not about to > > go back and coninue. Our propose is to create something new from scratch, > > so all that old problems should just gone. > > > > > > -- > > Carlos Rovira > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Caaac0c3693294c72c62608d7cb614ad0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637201491043736972&sdata=N6loQSFF1p1N3AS0%2FDoObELUjgRCMV9I0ylQyuYL4Y8%3D&reserved=0 > > >
