Hi Yishay, I think that should not be a requirement, and should not be a problem too. I said in the other email that we all need to verify the release in the same way (verify signs, hashes, build from sources, test in projects....) some people will do with Maven other will do with Ant. In case nobody will check with one or the other, that seems to me that the build systems is not important right?, but the reality is that at least we have 3 people that probably will verify using maven and other 3 with Ant, so that's for me optimal.
But again, I think the problem for me right now is not about CI server or local machine options...is about trying to impose a concrete RM process to all. For what I'm totally in disagree with that since the problem is the lack of freedom in all that. Since you're going to try CI server, lets see how it goes. I expect to start seeing soon emails in our inboxes about your try :) Thanks Carlos El mié., 1 abr. 2020 a las 14:26, Yishay Weiss (<[email protected]>) escribió: > > >Why "must" a RM built with all supported build systems and not just be > able to choose the >one he wants? > > To ensure that every developer is able to test his Royale changes on his > choice IDE. Part of the release is scripts that enable these developers to > do so. If these scripts are not working should we cancel the release? If > the answer is yes, then in order to get a release approved someone will > need to verify that these scripts are working. I agree with Alex that the > RM should be the one verifying this, rather than the voters. If it’s up to > the voters it might actually make the process longer. > > > Am 01.04.20, 11:00 schrieb "Yishay Weiss" <[email protected]>: > > Let’s keep this thread about the technical requirements. We can start > a new thread about what to do next. Although people feel like we’re going > around in circles, I personally have gained a much better grasp at what the > actual issues are. So let’s keep it concise and readable. > > Thanks. > > From: Piotr Zarzycki<mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 8:49 AM > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Coming back to collect requirements for the > release process > > 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
