Hi Alex any Yishay Alex, I think you are again defining a requirement by one of its solutions. So let me extract the requirements from this (I added it to the list):
10) The distribution built by any build system should produce distributions which can be used in any IDE I think the other points are already on it. Especially what you, Alex, referred to in your previous email was already on it ... I added the following to be more concrete: Addition to requirement 3) It should be possible to verify a release by comparing it’s binary artifacts for equality (reproducible builds): ... - Some tooling could be added to validate artifacts created by any form of distribution with ones built by Ant - Some tooling could be added to validate artifacts created by any form of distribution with ones built by Maven I think that should also make it possible to ensure any supported future build system as it doesn't rely on the distribution-form of a particular build-system. Chris Am 31.03.20, 07:48 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <[email protected]>: Hi Chris, Last comment from Alex explain exactly what release process has to do additional. - Did your document explanation included that step? Reading it I feel it includes, but I would like to make sure. Thanks, Piotr On Tue, Mar 31, 2020, 6:34 AM Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r6412a8240c1b690603d2ddd12b578ddfc3dc8436c24b15174a18fe74%40%3Cdev.royale.apache.org%3E > > A "build" (running 'ant main') produces jars and swcs but does not create > the same output as 'ant release' which produces tar.gz and .zip files. The > release artifacts are used in many IDEs and in NPM. So, IMO, in the > creating of the release artifacts, the RM should ensure that it is possible > to create the tar.gz and .zip files via Ant, and to create at minimum, the > Maven jars and swcs and hopefully a working equivalent of the tar.gz and > .zip via Maven using the "distribution" profile. A working "distribution" > profile did not exist in the past so it is a nice-to-have and not a > regression if the distribution profile's tar.gz and .zip has problems. It > would be a regression if it turned out the build.xml files in the release > could not build the tar.gz and .zip correctly. > > The only way I can think of to validate that the build.xml files will do > the right thing is to actually run "ant release" at some point in the > release process. In which case, you might as well use the resulting > artifacts. > > My 2 cents, > -Alex > > On 3/30/20, 12:11 PM, "Yishay Weiss" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Ant artifacts are reproducible by running the Ant scripts. Again, > the scenario is that if an Ant user wants to try a local change in an IDE > or NPM we want >to ensure that they can run the Ant "release" target and > get the tar.gz or .zip they need. > > “Again” suggests you’ve already given an explanation, but I couldn’t > find it. Can you expand on this scenario? If this is the only difference > you and Chris have I think it’s worth focusing on it. > > On 3/30/20, 2:17 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > thanks. I revise and for me is totally fine :) > > > El lun., 30 mar. 2020 a las 9:33, Harbs (<[email protected]>) > escribió: > > > Thanks for that. The Google Doc is a great initiative! > > > > Harbs > > > > > On Mar 30, 2020, at 10:26 AM, Christofer Dutz < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > as the discussion has gone back to: “the release should be as > in the 13 > > steps”, I’d like to re-focus on the probably more important > parts: > > > > > > I already started writing up a list of requirements and > options to > > achieve them: > > > > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1kMlNfgVVAtTBNb57Qe88-d0vbM-HdohgQFqWCBr-cAg%2Fedit%23&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb9e4d4ca20864eabf7a608d7d4de296d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637211922954783626&sdata=wykDg%2FGYXXpYQk2RE2Und%2BxZ7Qzr7lDXhInGuhgA4Xc%3D&reserved=0 > > < > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1kMlNfgVVAtTBNb57Qe88-d0vbM-HdohgQFqWCBr-cAg%2Fedit&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb9e4d4ca20864eabf7a608d7d4de296d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637211922954793626&sdata=DsQpQRNkDnek03Iulknv2TFkE3fIRtdN%2BdB8WsaUyII%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > Feel free to continue. > > > > > > Will not participate in the other discussion as it’s showing a > typical > > pattern of progressional-degradation, and continuing that thread > will not > > bring the project forward. > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > -- > Carlos Rovira > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb9e4d4ca20864eabf7a608d7d4de296d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637211922954793626&sdata=sZswsDv3TrjgbiXy0uIZ1RiysV91lpeaFMZvEFRR0lg%3D&reserved=0 > > > > >
