'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.' 'a chance it will work for them, and then it won't work for others.'
Based on everything I read which admittedly was quite a lot after I woke up this morning, that has already been avoided. There is (I believe) agreement not to replace anything with something that does not work (better). '...just get the current process to work again.' It sounds like this is also agreed as a first step, or at least there is a commitment/activity to do so. I don't understand this stuff, and have no experience of its 'reality' let alone much of the 'theory'. But if a) the current release system is restored and therefore viable for at least next release (if we have a RM to use it), and b) anyone is willing to donate their time to make it (objectively) better (i.e. easier to use/more reliable/more maintainable) then that is where I understand we are at. If so, that gets my +1 (which should not be needed in any case) On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 6:59 AM Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > >
