Make that two PMC members. If Carlos and Chris can make it possible to do frequent releases, I want that too.
If what they come up can't produce a valid release, then I agree that that would count as destroying existing work, and that's not acceptable. But that's not what they're planning to do. -- Josh Tynjala Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 1:14 PM Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 3/18/20, 12:06 PM, "Christofer Dutz" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > where is this thrown out? > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-compiler%2Ftree%2Fdevelop%2Fcompiler-build-tools&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Caaad86012aff4088cfce08d7cb6f68f7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637201551684695870&sdata=08kAgWKFZq8a15jHOivOq4oB6c2z5XPLKuJmexu3zfs%3D&reserved=0 > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-compiler%2Ftree%2Fdevelop%2Fcompiler-jburg-types&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Caaad86012aff4088cfce08d7cb6f68f7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637201551684695870&sdata=MtfRqNnNQE84twNXGa1ChJKCzt%2FyHAIwMKf47VTy%2FaQ%3D&reserved=0 > > 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. > > The new documentation does not mention them, so how would someone know to > do that? So sure, the new process seems simple but that's because it > doesn't document how to handle those two modules. > > 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. > > AFAICT, you are doing it the same way as before, but I won't know for sure > until the set of steps to create a release are documented. > > 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? > > Ant should be used to test Ant. I don't understand how you can test Ant > without running Ant. > > The Apache Way is about scratching your itch, but it is also about > consensus, and the itch you scratch should not break or destroy someone > else's work. Otherwise you are saying that someone can say "no, Royale > should not be PAYG" and rewrite the Basic libraries and I can't do anything > about that. That's not how Apache projects are supposed to work. > > We have one PMC member who wants to use Maven to do things Ant already > does. Why bother? Ant is better for scripting a set of steps. That's why > it exists. > > Let's fix the current steps and get a release out. I think you'll see > that it uses Maven "appropriately". Then make a branch and figure out how > you want to make a release. Because we have reproducible binaries, you > should be able to have your branch exactly match then next release so we > know nothing got missed. > > My guess is that the net is going to be to use Maven to tie a bunch of > steps together that are currently tied together with Ant. Assuming that > Ant is still used to validate the build.xml files and ant task jars. > > -Alex > > > > > >
