Hi Guys,
I'm a lover of Flex dev guy since more than 10 years, been members of
Flex group on Montpellier (France) at golden age of Flex and go at all
conferences when Michaël Chaize came to Montpellier (and using Flex
every day).
First of all I want to thank every one of you for your hard work, and
congratulate you for the actual Apache Royale capabilities.
With the last features (especialy datagrid), today your great work make
possible to use Apache Royale in business application. Of course, there
are bugs, but when reported, it's quickly fix, this is great.
Now, this is a huge opportunity but also risk for all guys like me to
adop Apache Royale for futur projects or use it instead of using Air
when it's possible.
Personnaly, I first use it on my own Webs applications and perhaps for
my customers on little applications for the begin. My big enormous worry
is to use it and be alone in front of a SDK bug.
Seeing new release every 1 or 2 months should certainly reassure me. For
now I see SDK 0.9.7 since a lot of time and this make me affraid and I
don't understand why there is no 0.9.8.
I'm speaking as an Apache Royale SDK user : I'm very sad to read these
debates on the subject of tools to use for making release. I don't care
about tools nedeed or not to build the release SDK.
I would like use Apache Royale to build RAD (Rapid Application Dev) Web
applications and see more and more SDK features added, and participate
to project (like today) by reporting bug by using my time on isolate
the bug and make tests cases with screenshoots to save your time in
fixing it.
Using Reac, Bootstrap, AngularJS or other similar is a back to 80's. How
can I explain my customer that I need 3 ou 4 days to make thinks that
took me 1 day with Flex ?
The big competitive advantage of Apache Royale is not only be able to
re-use Flex apps but is also simplicity and time saving where other SDK
can't do it. (I think you already know that)
I am convinced that all guys like me will jump using Royale when they
will know that there is a bug free SDK with fast evolution available.
(unfortunaly it's not known enough, nobody know someone working in
newspapers ?)
So please, I beg you, don't waste your time on things that are not
essential and like Carlos said, go forward. From outside view, Apache
Royale stay sticky to 0.9.7.
You are so close of a v1.0, I hope see it very soon and other releases
with bugs fix every 1, 2 or 3 months.
Consider my comments as support and not criticism.
Thanks again for your hard work.
Long life and success to Apache Royale !
Fred
Le 26.03.2020 09:26, Carlos Rovira a écrit :
Hi,
that's amazingly simple, so I think we should go that way without doubt. I
think reached this point there's a clear sense of that we need to go that
route.
We tried our best to stick with the previous process and we're all
loosing lots of time. Then currently seems no more people in the community
was interested in this thread, event to comment a single line (here or in
the other users list thread), what means that or there's no more people
like us in this project or people really is not interested and just want us
to release and go forward.
As previously I think most of the PMCs here (Om, Josh, Greg and me for
sure), probably Yishay for his concise comments are more for this.
My thinking is that the right now I think only 2 PMCs are for CI Server,
and other one that is uncertainly but didn't try the CI Server.
I think all can live together while is not a must for the rest that don't
want it the others option, so what's about if we release with the
super-simple steps Chris proposal, and others wanting to use CI do that
when is their RM turn ? (of course maintaining it and making it work for
his release without requiring nothing for the rest that doesn't want it).
Release as other projects do is recommended but not required, the same as
the actual CI server (but this one should be less recommended since is a
royale-only practice not seen in any other place).
What's the important thing is to release, do it, and do it easily and often.
Thanks
El jue., 26 mar. 2020 a las 8:24, Christofer Dutz (<
[email protected]>) escribió:
Ok,
I'll write this a last time as I do feel like we're going in circles and
will from now on not participate in any discussion involving releasing on a
CI server.
A correct Maven release would use (There will be some additional profiles
to activate to include all modules)
1) the "mvn release:branch" call in order to create the branch and bump
the version of develop to the next version.
2) the "mvn release:prepare" to change the pom to the release version, set
the timestamp in the pom (for reproducible builds) build ... if all tests
are good, commit the changes, tag this commit, update the poms to the next
development version, commit those changes and push everything.
3) the "mvn release:perform" which will checkout the tagged version build
everything with the "apache-release" profile turned on (Which causes the
source.jars, Javadoc.jars, hashes and gpg singatures to be created as well
as the assembly) This also deploys the built artifacts to Nexus.
Most of that you are already doing on the CI server however you're not
letting it do all automatically (For lack of credentials)
But ... if you would just be doing those steps on the RM machine.
Chris
Am 26.03.20, 05:54 schrieb "Alex Harui" <[email protected]>:
On 3/25/20, 4:46 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <[email protected]> wrote:
What I want to know is what the Maven commands should be to
create a
release in this "conventional process" you are referring to.
If you want to know what's the conventional maven process is, I
think I can
ask Chris if he wants to work with me on that process, since he
already did
many other Apache projects, we can expect the process is what is
needed for
us to. But just expect that will be a series of standard maven
commands
(prepare, release,...), so nothing strange at all (I expect).
Do you want us to do that?
Yes. I want to know what the series of standard Maven commands are.
Then we can figure out how to convert them to run on the CI server.
-Alex
Thanks
Maybe someone else can explain better than me.
-Alex
On 3/25/20, 2:22 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi Alex,
El mié., 25 mar. 2020 a las 21:26, Alex Harui
(<[email protected]>)
escribió:
Carlos,
I'm pretty sure that part of the "conventional process"
you want to
try
requires filling the staging repo from a local machine.
This is what we already did. If you go to [1] will see [2].
That was
the
upload of compiler to the staging repo. When trying to do
the same for
typedefs it failed when trying to fill repo from local
machine. I think
Chris or I should not take more time in trying to fix Ant
scripts that
are
failing.
Thanks
[1]
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frepository.apache.org%2F%23stagingRepositories&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C821c810ff88f4f3371a608d7d116c8e0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637207768101866118&sdata=qSFTmdvxYB8fK%2FKM5kAd%2Bzslsl0fNxUJi%2BybUIleIUY%3D&reserved=0
[2]
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2Fa%2Fw4az7pD&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C821c810ff88f4f3371a608d7d116c8e0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637207768101866118&sdata=mOv7%2BFzO764iEkXZgA3DiGEdeRaXQrLp%2Fgq8g%2BOkjt0%3D&reserved=0
--
Carlos Rovira
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C821c810ff88f4f3371a608d7d116c8e0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637207768101866118&sdata=96pUSZqS1Sc%2FJ4%2BvUUIFpcKEW4b2DAj2FJjCvc9eW2k%3D&reserved=0
--
Carlos Rovira
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C821c810ff88f4f3371a608d7d116c8e0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637207768101866118&sdata=96pUSZqS1Sc%2FJ4%2BvUUIFpcKEW4b2DAj2FJjCvc9eW2k%3D&reserved=0
--
Frédéric Gilli
mob.0668542622
http://www.cristallium.com
[1]
Links:
------
[1] http://www.cristallium.com
