Yeah, I think you folks need to decide which way you want to go ... this Yoyo process at the moment isn't brining the project any further, just further apart.
I think you have to decide, do you want releases or do you want 100% reproducible releases, but can wait for the compiler problems being fixed and the tooling being built (could probably take a while) ... you did a great job, I have to say, getting this far, but for truly reproducible SWC/SWFs still some work needs to be put in there. Speaking about it ... I couldn't find any discussion or vote thread where the project actually decided to go for reproducible builds ... I think with the requirement document I described what I could envision you folks doing and how you could achieve the different aspects of a release. I stand 100% behind what I wrote in that document. Also I think that my investment over the past weeks has shown that I do care to help you folks. If I wanted to harm the project, I wouldn't have put this much work into it. And ... I did do a full release and the output did work in any IDE I tested it in (Moonshine and VSCode). The source-bundles compiled without any issues in Ant and Maven and the Maven artifacts worked perfectly in my test project. So technically speaking I don't quite know what you are missing. I guess now it's up to you, if you want to keep on going round in circles or get releases out. I'll be waiting for you folks to do some decisions that we can stick to. And with decisions, I am referring to the entire project, not just the typical 4-5. I mean ... you're 14 PMCs, 2 committers and quite some users on this list ... please express your opinions. Chris Am 01.04.20, 09:36 schrieb "Carlos Rovira" <[email protected]>: Hi Piotr, I'd go and we could have a release soon, but I'm afraid we're not working good as a group. I created a build tools that nobody discussed but Alex, or voted but Chris or myself. To avoid me going over another here I announced that I left my RM position to Alex and Yishay to take over, since was the people interested and with most things agains the simple maven release process, but nobody said anything about it... Now I see emails from CI server running steps, so don't know if is Alex taking over, or just is testing since he just discuss but does not clearly take the turn announcing it... If we want to go we need people clearing backing it. Build tools release can be just few hours if we collect 3 +1 soon or at least 72h, I think that easy and maybe the problem was that I did over weekend? or was nobody was interested in we to succeed? then 0.9.7 can be prepared in about 1 hour, if we don't find more issues down the line, since is the first time doing this (although Chris tested in his own nexus) Difficult to do anything this way. We already spend many time fixing things and just find opposition, seems just you is backing us at the moment right now. I know people is tired of so many discussions but the reality is release still undone, and in this way more months can pass... just would like that people that wants to go with CI server work in fix the problems Chris and I reach it soon and the release. And most important: don't impose the process to others, but days pass without clear steps to do as a community. All this days what I'm asking to go is to be backed to do so...what will do gladly Thanks PIotr, since at least you are pronouncing! Carlos El mié., 1 abr. 2020 a las 7:49, Piotr Zarzycki (<[email protected]>) escribió: > Let's move forward with whatever you have guys :) > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020, 12:51 AM Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi Alex, > > > > so I finally understand that you're in favor of all RM need to run Maven > > and ANT in the release process duplicating the effort, and in the future > > for each new build system we could add (potentially), add it too. So if > we > > end having (let's imagine), 5 build systems, an RM will need to run all > the > > 5. Is that correct? > > > > But what's the purpose to do that? I don't understand at all. > > > > Release is not build (I think we're always mixing don't now why). And we > > should be able as RMs to work with just one system that ensures a release > > in good conditions, often, easily and generating the right bundle, and > > respect the rest of build systems so are available for the people > > interested to use it. > > > > Then people voting just need to revise release as always, some will > decide > > to run Maven, others Ant, and will test using the SDK to build their apps > > and see if all is ok.... and that's all. SDK build with Maven is now > fully > > working (or at least I'm using is in VSCode and I still didn't find > > problems), as well can be built with ANT...we already exposed how to > build > > in the instructions in the wiki. So I think we have all the pieces. > > > > As someone that offer my time for release, I must say that I appreciate > all > > the work you did in the CI server, and I said that many times. And I > always > > promoted that people that wants to use it, should do it. I encourage them > > to do so. I just state that I see some problems with the stability > (server > > use to hang), the fragility (is easy to break it since any change in ANT > or > > Maven, or any other new build system will break it easily), and the bugs > > that we discover that exposed that things was not working as expected and > > need fixing, since we could pass from step 7 due to problems in the > > compiler that was clearly something we break at all. > > > > So, in the same way, after my experience with the CI Server, I have clear > > that I don't want to use it, and prefer a release process more standard, > as > > the rest of Apache projects are doing to release often without much > > problem. > > > > So for me is freedom, people wanting to use, go and use it, people that > > does not want...don't worry there's other valid way (as valid as the > > hundreds of apache projects using it) > > > > In opposite to you, I want to be associated to that idea, since I trust > it > > completely and is to me a sign of health of Apache Royale as an Open > Source > > project. I respect that idea and back it completely. > > > > So, if the position is to block a release as we was proposing and make > > mandatory the CI server to make a Royale release, I think I'm completely > > disagree with that position. In other way, if we can respect each other > and > > let people do releases in one or the other way, I'm all for it. > > > > I hope we stop going in circles, and do the release :) > > I said yesterday that Yishay and you can take over if you want, but still > > any of you said nothing to that. > > In the other hand, if you don't want to invest time in release, I can > take > > over, but I need to be completely backed to do that > > > > Days continue passing, so just hope we can unblock all of this :) > > > > Thanks! :) > > > > Carlos > > > > > > El mar., 31 mar. 2020 a las 21:23, Alex Harui (<[email protected] > >) > > escribió: > > > > > Chris is trying to find ways that the RM does not have to run the Ant > > > targets kicked off by the "release" target. That by inference, since > the > > > CI build runs those targets, the RM does not need to. > > > > > > I don't like that logic. That logic would say that none of us need to > > > test the artifacts since the CI server built ran the test on some other > > set > > > of code. > > > > > > I certainly would not want my name associated in public with such an > > idea. > > > > > > I am very frustrated by these continued attempts to eliminate Ant from > > the > > > RM's task list. I am also frustrated that the folks who continue to > > > support having more Maven and less Ant in the release process have not > > > stepped up to examine the build-tools release candidate, one of the > > > outcomes of these Maven changes that you wanted to see. Instead, this > > > effort has cost me considerable time that could have been use > elsewhere. > > > It is not fair to vote for or encourage commits that cost other people > > time. > > > > > > -Alex > > > > > > On 3/31/20, 12:11 PM, "Yishay Weiss" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I feel like we’re still not talking about the same thing. The > > scenario > > > as I understood it is about local changes, in which case the CI > wouldn’t > > > help. > > > > > > >10) The distribution built by any build system should produce > > > distributions which can be used in any IDE > > > > > > I think your wording suggest that too. > > > > > > > > > From: Christofer Dutz<mailto:[email protected]> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 9:32 PM > > > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Coming back to collect requirements for the > > > release process > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > well yes ... I am assuming that you have CI pipelines for > > continuously > > > checking that the builds work. > > > I wouldn't expect too many RCs to be cancelled for such reasons. > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > Am 31.03.20, 19:55 schrieb "Yishay Weiss" <[email protected] > >: > > > > > > Chris, is this how you see it too? > > > > > > >Chris wants to put the verification of the build.xml files on > > the > > > voters. > > > > > > 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%7C01033f7009d24597b51808d7d5a74410%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212786689508605&sdata=AtwSURv%2FRMjilIoG6leT3Ic7B29MRJB%2FrxQidYq9xRM%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%7C01033f7009d24597b51808d7d5a74410%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212786689508605&sdata=AFNrHTIsOOARCRpSl%2FVVsf5nexEt4Xacjlpxuk8DM7c%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%7C01033f7009d24597b51808d7d5a74410%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212786689508605&sdata=1uhy44DpVU2yX9vJXD6NN1f%2BW7zPbWJEckhyDQ2hhGY%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%7C01033f7009d24597b51808d7d5a74410%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212786689508605&sdata=2p8vwn0xOZqR6BfXDDh7c%2BYXa6IwGP0RU5z%2FtdDKSpQ%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%7C01033f7009d24597b51808d7d5a74410%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212786689508605&sdata=AtwSURv%2FRMjilIoG6leT3Ic7B29MRJB%2FrxQidYq9xRM%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%7C01033f7009d24597b51808d7d5a74410%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212786689518600&sdata=s3GT8EtwSvaia0AVRVY0PST2RXqzXndvm9E5PhNjdSE%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%7C01033f7009d24597b51808d7d5a74410%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212786689518600&sdata=HOZAJMG6%2B95uMDD0GdxRSs%2B8Xiin2g57cszsjmnle6k%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%7C01033f7009d24597b51808d7d5a74410%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212786689518600&sdata=72MX6CN4%2B%2BgZYTZ6BluqKI4f6MK3gYpgF6n5Koa4Ro4%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Carlos Rovira > > http://about.me/carlosrovira > > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
