Hi Alex, I’ll do my best to help. Thanks for working on it. ________________________________ From: Alex Harui <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 7:30:49 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Some info from the current CI server emails
@Carlos, The information you are providing appears to be a misinterpretation of reality to suit your goals. It appears there is a double-standard. I would imagine that Chris and you made several edits to the pom.xml files beyond the ones that were actually pushed in a series of PRs. And nobody said that was a sign that Maven was too hard to work with. The Maven build underwent some major refactoring. I am now trying to translate that into CI steps. It will take time. I'm not going to get it right the first time. Or the second. But with incremental improvements it will get better. First, though, I had to remove your credentials from the CI machine. I do not normally do that, so it took a significant amount of time to figure out. No other RM should have to do that, I hope. You can see that I was able to push some changes under your name. Then I found that the build.tools pom did not include the CI profile that was added to the main pom. And then Jenkins disconnected the slave. I sure wish we could spend our energy on figuring out why. Yishay, if you have cycles to help fix the CI steps that would be great. They certainly can't be used as-is because of the changes to the Maven build. At minimum, I will work on them when I have time, and ask you to run them from time to time to make sure they work for you. If we're lucky, we can do one step a day. The Maven changes added several steps for a separate build-tools release so that's where I'm starting now. The upside is that the "if utils" steps will go away and some of the instructions in the remaining steps will be simpler. -Alex On 4/1/20, 8:37 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Yishay thanks go ahead, and report you findings :) El mié., 1 abr. 2020 a las 14:28, Yishay Weiss (<[email protected]>) escribió: > Hi Carlos, > > > > I’m not yet convinced by Chris’s arguments. I think the quickest path to a > release is for me to start one this evening using the CI server, which I > intend to do unless anyone has objections to that. > > > > *From:* Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 1, 2020 2:44:03 PM > *To:* Apache Royale Development <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: Some info from the current CI server emails > > > > Hi Yishay, > > if we are not doing objections to any of us using any of the RM process > available is ok for me. But I though Alex was not on that page for what I > saw in his other thread response. > > About technical requeriments. Are you ok with the evidences Chris reported > various times about that the new standard process is all what we need? > > He responded again some minutes ago to the other list > > Thanks > > Carlos > > > > > > El mié., 1 abr. 2020 a las 11:19, Yishay Weiss (<[email protected]>) > escribió: > > > > > >If we are discussing if we can use just CI Server, yes I think we need > to > > >vote, since I'm not with that. > > > > That’s why I wanted to keep the technical requirements thread concise. > > It’s not about whether or not to use the CI server. It’s about a list of > > requirements for any build method. Chris has done a good job of gathering > > the abstract requirements. We have one issue which is not agreed on by > > Alex, and having understood things better, myself. I think we need to > vote > > on that. > > > > El mié., 1 abr. 2020 a las 11:07, Yishay Weiss (<[email protected] > >) > > escribió: > > > > > I was hoping the technical requirements thread would spawn a vote on > the > > > remaining issues. If the result is that the maven solution as it stands > > > today does not meet the agreed requirements then we will have no choice > > but > > > to use the CI server process. > > > > > > Assuming that’s the situation, I will wait for Alex to report on what > > he’s > > > doing and if everyone else is ok with it I’ll start working on the > > release > > > after that, hopefully this evening my time. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > From: Carlos Rovira<mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>> > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 11:37 AM > > > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>> > > > Subject: Some info from the current CI server emails > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > taking into account that Chris and I simplified each CI Server step > > (until > > > step 7) improving it but removing parameters that was not necessary and > > > that streamlined CI Server a lot, I want to analyze recent CI Server > > > emails. > > > > > > Alex, that is the most skilled in the CI Server steps from us, started > > > CI step 1 again. Just "CI Step 1" took him to complete from 6:57am to > > > 8:14am (my time). That means more than one hour and a quarter. > > > > > > And he had 3 fails as we can see in our emails. Probably because of > > server > > > hanging and he need to restart 3 times, or due to things not working > > > properly for him, what means the same can happen to the rest of us. > > > > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2Fa%2FAgRH9cB&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5bbaa3cb9cea41c1bec108d7d6528955%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213522292236235&sdata=t2tczUrAINKMRG9LJco3g7Ivxxohrgv5OFEakbf5q5Q%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > There's still 12 steps more, to do (and many more time consuming that > > step > > > 1). > > > > > > Just want to expose it to see if that helps all of us here to > > > understand some of the current problems we are having > > > > > > HTH > > > > > > -- > > > Carlos Rovira > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5bbaa3cb9cea41c1bec108d7d6528955%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213522292236235&sdata=5xI%2FintO7RBgxAl8ZmVyYNRYeuP1GRdAX2C%2FB4f4aZM%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Carlos Rovira > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5bbaa3cb9cea41c1bec108d7d6528955%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213522292236235&sdata=5xI%2FintO7RBgxAl8ZmVyYNRYeuP1GRdAX2C%2FB4f4aZM%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > -- > Carlos Rovira > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5bbaa3cb9cea41c1bec108d7d6528955%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213522292236235&sdata=5xI%2FintO7RBgxAl8ZmVyYNRYeuP1GRdAX2C%2FB4f4aZM%3D&reserved=0 > > *From: *Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> > *Sent: *Wednesday, April 1, 2020 2:44 PM > *Subject: *Re: Some info from the current CI server emails > > > > Hi Yishay, > > if we are not doing objections to any of us using any of the RM process > available is ok for me. But I though Alex was not on that page for what I > saw in his other thread response. > > About technical requeriments. Are you ok with the evidences Chris reported > various times about that the new standard process is all what we need? > > He responded again some minutes ago to the other list > > Thanks > > Carlos > > > > > > El mié., 1 abr. 2020 a las 11:19, Yishay Weiss (<[email protected]>) > escribió: > > > > > >If we are discussing if we can use just CI Server, yes I think we need > to > > >vote, since I'm not with that. > > > > That’s why I wanted to keep the technical requirements thread concise. > > It’s not about whether or not to use the CI server. It’s about a list of > > requirements for any build method. Chris has done a good job of gathering > > the abstract requirements. We have one issue which is not agreed on by > > Alex, and having understood things better, myself. I think we need to > vote > > on that. > > > > El mié., 1 abr. 2020 a las 11:07, Yishay Weiss (<[email protected] > >) > > escribió: > > > > > I was hoping the technical requirements thread would spawn a vote on > the > > > remaining issues. If the result is that the maven solution as it stands > > > today does not meet the agreed requirements then we will have no choice > > but > > > to use the CI server process. > > > > > > Assuming that’s the situation, I will wait for Alex to report on what > > he’s > > > doing and if everyone else is ok with it I’ll start working on the > > release > > > after that, hopefully this evening my time. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > From: Carlos Rovira<mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>> > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 11:37 AM > > > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>> > > > Subject: Some info from the current CI server emails > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > taking into account that Chris and I simplified each CI Server step > > (until > > > step 7) improving it but removing parameters that was not necessary and > > > that streamlined CI Server a lot, I want to analyze recent CI Server > > > emails. > > > > > > Alex, that is the most skilled in the CI Server steps from us, started > > > CI step 1 again. Just "CI Step 1" took him to complete from 6:57am to > > > 8:14am (my time). That means more than one hour and a quarter. > > > > > > And he had 3 fails as we can see in our emails. Probably because of > > server > > > hanging and he need to restart 3 times, or due to things not working > > > properly for him, what means the same can happen to the rest of us. > > > > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2Fa%2FAgRH9cB&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5bbaa3cb9cea41c1bec108d7d6528955%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213522292236235&sdata=t2tczUrAINKMRG9LJco3g7Ivxxohrgv5OFEakbf5q5Q%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > There's still 12 steps more, to do (and many more time consuming that > > step > > > 1). > > > > > > Just want to expose it to see if that helps all of us here to > > > understand some of the current problems we are having > > > > > > HTH > > > > > > -- > > > Carlos Rovira > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5bbaa3cb9cea41c1bec108d7d6528955%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213522292236235&sdata=5xI%2FintO7RBgxAl8ZmVyYNRYeuP1GRdAX2C%2FB4f4aZM%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Carlos Rovira > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5bbaa3cb9cea41c1bec108d7d6528955%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213522292236235&sdata=5xI%2FintO7RBgxAl8ZmVyYNRYeuP1GRdAX2C%2FB4f4aZM%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > -- > Carlos Rovira > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5bbaa3cb9cea41c1bec108d7d6528955%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213522292236235&sdata=5xI%2FintO7RBgxAl8ZmVyYNRYeuP1GRdAX2C%2FB4f4aZM%3D&reserved=0 > > > -- Carlos Rovira https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5bbaa3cb9cea41c1bec108d7d6528955%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213522292236235&sdata=5xI%2FintO7RBgxAl8ZmVyYNRYeuP1GRdAX2C%2FB4f4aZM%3D&reserved=0
