> I thought we had general consensus to use Ant to build the Ant artifacts and Maven to build the Maven artifacts
Seeing this distinction mentioned over and over in this discussion, I wonder if everyone actually has the same understanding on what exactly counts as an "Ant artifact" and what counts as a "Maven artifact". I may be wrong, but this might be part of why the discussion keeps going around in circles. -- Josh Tynjala Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:13 AM Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: > Chris wants to put the verification of the build.xml files on the voters. > I disagree. The RM should do the verification before putting the RC up for > vote. Maybe that's the issue we have to vote on. Running "ant release" is > a simple test of the build.xml files. It will be even better the day we > get the Maven distribution to match it. > > I thought we had general consensus to use Ant to build the Ant artifacts > and Maven to build the Maven artifacts. Doing so tests that the build.xml > files and pom.xml files are working. It does not make sense to not run > tests we have available in order to make the RM's job take less time and > the voter's job take more time. > > -Alex > > On 3/31/20, 10:05 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Ideally it wouldn't matter if you build it with Ant or Maven. > > As I understand it, the scenario is that a developer makes a change > and needs to package that change into a zip in order to see it in his/her > IDE. In order to do that s/he will need to run some Ant scripts. How does > the RM verify that these scripts work? I may be missing something… > > > Am 31.03.20, 17:59 schrieb "Yishay Weiss" <[email protected]>: > > > > - Some tooling could be added to validate artifacts created by > any form of distribution with ones built by Ant > > If I understand Alex’s concern correctly he wants Ant users to see > their Royale changes in any IDE. Is this tooling supposed to help with that? > > > 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://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.apache.org%2Fthread.html%2Fr6412a8240c1b690603d2ddd12b578ddfc3dc8436c24b15174a18fe74%2540%253Cdev.royale.apache.org%253E&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cdab1739df18d47111a1208d7d595b752%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212711318551982&sdata=Q5EqiuL89VNvHvjftVtZJnevo3sBXOMMSyN0sM7Kk%2B8%3D&reserved=0 > > > > 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%7Cdab1739df18d47111a1208d7d595b752%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212711318551982&sdata=HhomEKpXL7Beq9V7n%2FJOCB2RUezsZIvhBL6NAnzd%2BPs%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%7Cdab1739df18d47111a1208d7d595b752%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212711318551982&sdata=WZihCXEgKLwbdOHA8d3IaJMaeogXU3s9jI0wtsCP6WM%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%7Cdab1739df18d47111a1208d7d595b752%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212711318551982&sdata=VrBVT9%2FgUa9H3L9EdlFi60K6apxF4asAc3NONAMmgLk%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Christofer Dutz<mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 7:52 PM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Coming back to collect requirements for the > release process > > > There is a difference between something working and being > bit-identical. > > But regarding seeing your changes in any IDE. Ideally it wouldn't > matter if you build it with Ant or Maven. > Right now the Maven distribution seems to work in the IDEs it was > tested with ... so ... yes. > > So if you develop, it shouldn't matter if you build with Ant or Maven > > Chris > > > > > > Am 31.03.20, 17:59 schrieb "Yishay Weiss" <[email protected]>: > > > > - Some tooling could be added to validate artifacts created by > any form of distribution with ones built by Ant > > If I understand Alex’s concern correctly he wants Ant users to see > their Royale changes in any IDE. Is this tooling supposed to help with that? > > > 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://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.apache.org%2Fthread.html%2Fr6412a8240c1b690603d2ddd12b578ddfc3dc8436c24b15174a18fe74%2540%253Cdev.royale.apache.org%253E&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cdab1739df18d47111a1208d7d595b752%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212711318551982&sdata=Q5EqiuL89VNvHvjftVtZJnevo3sBXOMMSyN0sM7Kk%2B8%3D&reserved=0 > > > > 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%7Cdab1739df18d47111a1208d7d595b752%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212711318551982&sdata=HhomEKpXL7Beq9V7n%2FJOCB2RUezsZIvhBL6NAnzd%2BPs%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%7Cdab1739df18d47111a1208d7d595b752%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212711318551982&sdata=WZihCXEgKLwbdOHA8d3IaJMaeogXU3s9jI0wtsCP6WM%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%7Cdab1739df18d47111a1208d7d595b752%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212711318551982&sdata=VrBVT9%2FgUa9H3L9EdlFi60K6apxF4asAc3NONAMmgLk%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
