Because you keep proposing processes that don't actually use the build.xml files to build the Ant artifacts. Your prior post is not a correct summary of what I'm saying. The RM must run the build.xml files in creating the artifacts to prove that they work.
-Alex On 3/18/20, 1:40 PM, "Christofer Dutz" <[email protected]> wrote: Gee ... I wanted to go to bed, but I had to respond to this. No one ever said to get rid of Ant ... why do you keep on claiming this is the goal? We just want to create the release with only one of the two and not with both. Chris Am 18.03.20, 21:37 schrieb "Alex Harui" <[email protected]>: We already use Maven to release the Maven artifacts. Maybe you can explain how the RM can test the validity of the Ant artifacts without using Ant. Otherwise the RM has to run Ant at some point, and that's why we currently use Ant in certain places and Maven in others. And not get rid of Ant. -Alex On 3/18/20, 1:32 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <[email protected]> wrote: I believe, as they do, that a Maven release process will be easier. -- Josh Tynjala Bowler Hat LLC <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbowlerhat.dev&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C310b1519b44242bc5e5c08d7cb7ca135%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637201608458935036&sdata=Iy8OWlhN06YislGx4XSuLSO6pynaDiINky7woOOKcss%3D&reserved=0> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 1:31 PM Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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%7C310b1519b44242bc5e5c08d7cb7ca135%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637201608458935036&sdata=Iy8OWlhN06YislGx4XSuLSO6pynaDiINky7woOOKcss%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%7C310b1519b44242bc5e5c08d7cb7ca135%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637201608458935036&sdata=VvtOiKIBFYoK86WPNKYY9l6kYCpcPnS%2B0m3B2qMWFG4%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%7C310b1519b44242bc5e5c08d7cb7ca135%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637201608458935036&sdata=Dqwf1HCceMvsNKxde68FHXLCtdkHSkLkpuHAdcohu78%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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
