It isn't so much about the artifacts as the build.xml and pom.xml files that create them. The RM should test the correctness of the build.xml and pom.xml files before putting the artifacts up for vote. That's the way it has been and I think it should continue to be this way. That way fewer RC's will be cancelled due to issues found in the build.xml and pom.xml files.
We have simple tests we can run to ensure the validity of an RC. Let's keep running them. My 2 cents, -Alex On 3/31/20, 10:32 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <[email protected]> wrote: For Jar files both should be generally identical, no matter what they are built with however Maven stores the pom.xml and the property values it used in "META-DATA/maven/..." ... However Maven doesn't really care about them as long as it gets the jar and a matching pom file. For SWF/SWC the output should be identical. So I really don't understand why we keep on getting back here ... Chris Am 31.03.20, 19:25 schrieb "Josh Tynjala" <[email protected]>: > 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://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbowlerhat.dev&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C84ea096f59b14bbd755408d7d5998726%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212727746993798&sdata=Xncm0wLYriIHtUElhzJjxhmeAAiHTQxKZDyje7ALTTw%3D&reserved=0> 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%7C84ea096f59b14bbd755408d7d5998726%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212727746993798&sdata=yqC2YAisKSL417lR%2Fm53U8rH1wFpuUmb9IhWZYhmjjc%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%7C84ea096f59b14bbd755408d7d5998726%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212727746993798&sdata=a9B3cw9P5GagSOhZ5lJndPqsERoyx6JnVWIhB%2FeYTlI%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%7C84ea096f59b14bbd755408d7d5998726%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212727746993798&sdata=TlBMnZrPIrD4qtsspBBXra80HTFo2WVFUDLbB6mZvfw%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%7C84ea096f59b14bbd755408d7d5998726%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212727746993798&sdata=rNFvazw83No5hg0Pqa2J5Y3%2BY1Y7wOMbo5%2FOAXj8dd4%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%7C84ea096f59b14bbd755408d7d5998726%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212727746993798&sdata=yqC2YAisKSL417lR%2Fm53U8rH1wFpuUmb9IhWZYhmjjc%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%7C84ea096f59b14bbd755408d7d5998726%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212727746993798&sdata=a9B3cw9P5GagSOhZ5lJndPqsERoyx6JnVWIhB%2FeYTlI%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%7C84ea096f59b14bbd755408d7d5998726%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212727746993798&sdata=TlBMnZrPIrD4qtsspBBXra80HTFo2WVFUDLbB6mZvfw%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%7C84ea096f59b14bbd755408d7d5998726%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212727746993798&sdata=rNFvazw83No5hg0Pqa2J5Y3%2BY1Y7wOMbo5%2FOAXj8dd4%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
