On 3/18/20, 1:25 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <[email protected]> wrote:
Make that two PMC members. If Carlos and Chris can make it possible to do
frequent releases, I want that too.
We already had a way to do frequent release. So I don't understand spending
more time to do something we already could do.
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://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbowlerhat.dev&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C2894af63dcbf4932122208d7cb7a82ae%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637201599351894795&sdata=%2Fg5qCXzVQ9uLLKhGYi3rNcio8ZGYQygXM%2FAe13%2F%2BmCk%3D&reserved=0>
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%7C2894af63dcbf4932122208d7cb7a82ae%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637201599351894795&sdata=iiVNkXqcUd76nPyWmYG22RQbtETyNSoGoADwjVfNq1E%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%7C2894af63dcbf4932122208d7cb7a82ae%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637201599351894795&sdata=uiIF7oYEEWXV%2FYcUJbH%2FkUjxrS9T%2BDsumVzqf8holNQ%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
>
>
>
>
>
>
