It's time to vote to end that once for all :) I'm personally tired + my clients tired as well - so users are tired.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020, 10:20 AM Christofer Dutz <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > >
