Hi Carlos, When I get to step 14, a release branch will be cut. I'm still back on step 2.
-Alex On 4/8/20, 12:06 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Alex, I think we didn't understand each other. In this thread I was asking to avoid the use of "develop" branch to do the release, instead use a new branch (let's say we name it "release-process-0.9.7" and the RM can do whatever he needs there. In that way, the rest of us are not affected. Right now in Royale-compiler we have 2 commits about releasing build-tools, that I want to avoid. Those in particular are not problematic, but will be the ones for compiler, typedefs and framework in case the release is not done quickly. The main problems in the way we do now: - If release need to be aborted, will have lots of "[maven-release-plugin]" commits done and reverted. - developers using the current snapshot will need to not update the commits with the new versions to continue building the snapshot that is used in the rest of repos. so steps 14,18 and 22 was not what I was referring to. Thanks El vie., 3 abr. 2020 a las 6:38, Alex Harui (<[email protected]>) escribió: > Steps 14, 18, and 22 in [1] dictate the use of branches. > > [1] > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FTask-List-For-Royale-Releases&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ce3f8cd14da574441d9bd08d7db8b6a31%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637219264170137667&sdata=hufpaYBkpnkEQxnqBz2isA0FVc8uCniHibUc1klo41M%3D&reserved=0 > > -Alex > > On 4/2/20, 4:53 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > sending this again, since it was missed in the other thread, but is > something not related. > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > De: Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> > Date: jue., 2 abr. 2020 a las 14:32 > Subject: Re: Royale Releases > To: Apache Royale Development <[email protected]> > > > Hi, > > one thing I want to propose before other considerations: > > When starting work on a release, could we work on a new branch? > > so all commits go to that branch and when all is done then merge to > develop? I think that will generate less problems to people working in > develop branch since releases can be wrong or test can delay some days, > that means people can have versions updated while other parts of the > code > still require old versions, so that generate confusion. Doing all in a > new > branch and then merging after all votes passes, seems to me the best > way to > keep safe users working on develop. > > Thanks > > > El jue., 2 abr. 2020 a las 9:46, Carlos Rovira (< > [email protected]>) > escribió: > > > Hi Alex, > > > > first, many thanks for the detailed email. I'll comment on this > later as I > > have more time. > > > > For now, to add up a recent example on what Chris commented: If you > all > > remember a week ago I was trying to use SVG Images in a blog example > that > > was published 2 days ago. Nobody tried SVG Images before building > with > > maven, I know that since maven was not properly configured and using > that > > component from Maven was failing with an RTE. Probably we have more > things > > not working the same way when build from Maven and Ant, and that's > > something that will need people using that code paths in test > applications > > (or in their own apps) to see if things works properly. > > > > I was recently introduced to "examples-integrationtest" by Chris, > that I > > plan to use soon as I can. I think is a great idea, since you get a > Firefox > > running test interface of the real use of some concrete royale code. > I > > think passed until now unnoticed by all of us, and seems a powerful > tool. > > There's already an example about FlexStore with some basic > assertions. > > > > Again, thanks, and will comment on the rest later > > > > Carlos > > > > > > > > > > El jue., 2 abr. 2020 a las 9:20, Christofer Dutz (< > > [email protected]>) escribió: > > > >> Hi Alex, > >> > >> just a point you are bringing up: "Code coverage". > >> > >> I strongly dislike the idea of "asjs" effectively being the test > for the > >> compiler. The reasoning behind this is: yes you do get more code > covered, > >> but only the happy-path (ideally) and even if things go wrong, the > end > >> results aren't tested. Did add a module to asjs years ago > >> ("examples-integrationtest") that deployed the examples in a tomcat > server > >> then opens a Firefox browser and clicks through 2 of the examples > (I added > >> two dummy tests as an example, but seems no one touched this after > me). I > >> did this because I remember us working on asjs for weeks without > anyone > >> noticing the compiler wasn't producing runnable code ... same with > the > >> little unit-tests that are still run for every example, that simply > check > >> if an output is generated, because we had a prolonged period of > time where > >> we were all working on different parts, but for quite some time the > >> application compilation just didn't output anything and no one > noticed. > >> > >> So coverage is nothing without assertions (my opinion) ... ok ... > it's > >> slightly better than no coverage, but not much, in my opinion. > >> > >> I think in parallel to this release discussions I have seen numerous > >> threads about someone doing something that broke something for > someone > >> else. This could be addressed by increasing coverage by providing > explicit > >> tests. > >> > >> Coming back to the releases: > >> I have no objections, if you do a "release" locally and automate the > >> validation on the CI server (Which effectively would be your > proposal to do > >> the first 12 steps on local hardware and the 13th on the CI > server). I even > >> think that's a good idea ... There could be one step for building a > release > >> from a given "git tag" for every build system and generic means to > compare > >> tar.gz and zips produced by any build system with that of another > (ideally > >> with better output than just a plain "true/false"). This would even > help to > >> iron out the last potentially existing bumps out of the Maven > distribution. > >> > >> Chris > >> > >> > >> > >> Am 02.04.20, 07:59 schrieb "Alex Harui" <[email protected]>: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> This is my attempt to explain what goes into a release in hopes > that > >> we can understand and agree on what our release process is. It > became > >> apparent in my reading of the wiki page with the new Maven steps > and in > >> talking with Harbs today that there are still many > misunderstandings about > >> what we do to create a release. I don't generally like writing > >> instructions in English because it is easy to be ambiguous. All of > the > >> steps that we use to create releases had been captured in Ant > scripts in a > >> much more explicit way, IMO, but I took the time to write them down > in > >> English here: > >> > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FTask-List-For-Royale-Releases&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ce3f8cd14da574441d9bd08d7db8b6a31%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637219264170137667&sdata=hufpaYBkpnkEQxnqBz2isA0FVc8uCniHibUc1klo41M%3D&reserved=0 > >> > >> I did this quickly by scanning the CI steps, the new Maven > steps and > >> the Ant scripts used in prior releases so there could certainly be > mistakes > >> and missed steps. If I did my math right, the RM for 0.9.7 will > have to > >> complete over 100 tasks (essentially, typing a command-line 100 > times). > >> Future RMs, when we don't have to release build-tools, will have > about 92 > >> steps. And I did not include voter verification checks the RM > should run > >> before opening a vote (verifying that the artifacts download and > match > >> their checksums, etc). As an RM, I run a bunch of tests on the RC > before > >> sending out the vote. Maybe we should add those to the task list. > >> > >> I think there has been confusion about the use of Ant in the > release > >> process. Because I was the RM for the first set of FlexJS/Royale > releases, > >> and I'm a lazy person who hates typing at the command line, I > created Ant > >> scripts to execute these 100 steps. But I agree that it is not a > >> requirement that other RMs must use the Ant scripts for these > commands. If > >> you are the RM and like typing, go ahead. > >> > >> Then we found out that other people couldn't get through this > task > >> list. I think the 3 people who tried were having trouble with Maven > >> uploads and downloads. So what I did was put the first 40 steps or > so into > >> Jenkins jobs. And by doing that, Piotr was able to produce our last > >> release. And that also saves on manually typing commands. But > again, > >> going forward, the RM gets to choose how they want to execute these > steps. > >> > >> If you scan the set of steps, you'll see that "ant" is only in > there > >> once. I believe the recent threads have been about this single > command out > >> of the 100+ commands. This is why this has been so frustrating to > me. I > >> believe there is a solid technical reason for that one command: it > proves > >> that the build.xml files in the source packages can build the > .tar.gz that > >> are useful to NPM and IDE users who use Ant and want to test a > change. > >> > >> I think of it as code-coverage. If we had code-coverage tools, > we > >> would ask that the RM complete as much of the automated > code-coverage > >> testing as possible before posting the release for a vote. That one > >> command increases our code coverage by running the build.xml > files. We > >> should be always working to increase automated code coverage in the > RC. > >> Certainly for me as RM, I will gladly watch TV as the automated > tests run > >> because a failed RC means going back through many of the first 25 > commands > >> again and wastes other people's time. Each RC is more emails to > read and > >> more time from the voters and testers. > >> > >> If there are other ways for the RM to get the same or better > code > >> coverage on the build.xml files before posting the RC, we can > discuss those > >> options. > >> > >> I am hopeful we can all agree on these simple principles: > Strive for > >> better code coverage and fewer failed RCs. Royale's main purpose > is to > >> save other people time. Let's do that in creating releases too. > >> > >> One issue that was brought up recently was whether it is a good > >> decision to have the RM test all of the build platforms we support. > >> Suppose we add some other build system support or more in the > future? > >> Again, the code coverage principle applies here, but also, I would > like us > >> to retain feature parity, and I also hope for as few RCs and votes > as > >> possible. So instead of having separate > votes/features/release-dates for > >> the Maven artifacts vs the Ant artifacts vs the SomeFutureBuildTech > >> artifacts, I think we should have one vote and keep them all in > sync. If > >> we do ever get around to monthly or bi-monthly releases, I think > separate > >> build platform releases would be too much work. > >> > >> But consider this thought I just had today: the RM doesn't > really > >> have to choose to do all 100 commands on a local machine or with Ant > >> scripts or do the first 40 via CI. The RM can actually pick and > choose > >> commands to run on the CI server. The CI Jenkins jobs are not a > >> separate/alternative release process, they are just another way of > >> executing the first 40 steps. Using CI jobs actually requires > additional > >> command-line cut-and-paste to push commits on the CI server and to > sign and > >> validate binaries locally, but that's the trade-off of not having to > >> configure your machine to successfully run all of the automated > tests and > >> build systems, and being able to run a command by filling in the > version > >> number and rc number and hitting the "ok" button instead of making > sure you > >> got the whole command typed in correctly. > >> > >> So, an RM can run the first 25 steps locally, then go the CI > server > >> and run what is now Jenkins Job "Royale_Release_Step_013" (no need > to run > >> the first 12) and it will run tasks 26 through 32, and if it is > successful, > >> then the RM has proven code coverage of the build.xml files. (If > the > >> resulting tar.gz and zips are not posted, then the RM should verify > that > >> they match the ones from Maven distribution). I would encourage > RMs to > >> also use the CI jobs that generate the emails to make sure the > subject and > >> content is correct and contains the usual instructions so we have > >> consistency. Maybe someday there will be CI jobs to do the last > 60+ steps > >> if that helps. We could add a Jenkins job that runs an Ant build > on RC > >> artifacts on dist.a.o as well. > >> > >> I would like you all to help maintain the list of 100 steps and > other > >> documents related to the release process, and improve the CI jobs > and Ant > >> steps if it helps you be a more efficient RM. I am hopeful that > now that I > >> have hopefully explained our release process better, that we can > see that > >> these 100+ steps just have to be done in some way. The RM can > figure out > >> what way works best for them, but they must get through all of them. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> -Alex > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > > Carlos Rovira > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ce3f8cd14da574441d9bd08d7db8b6a31%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637219264170137667&sdata=4d0pf2RP7oEPlHrIqzjojFnx3w%2F4P2r9%2FnUMqXwZDJM%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > -- > Carlos Rovira > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ce3f8cd14da574441d9bd08d7db8b6a31%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637219264170147659&sdata=%2FRKEtzh2Hc92m%2B6TDoAVuTmlZ%2BlNsYHHgP%2Bp%2Bh3NaGI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > -- > Carlos Rovira > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ce3f8cd14da574441d9bd08d7db8b6a31%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637219264170147659&sdata=%2FRKEtzh2Hc92m%2B6TDoAVuTmlZ%2BlNsYHHgP%2Bp%2Bh3NaGI%3D&reserved=0 > > > -- Carlos Rovira https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ce3f8cd14da574441d9bd08d7db8b6a31%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637219264170147659&sdata=%2FRKEtzh2Hc92m%2B6TDoAVuTmlZ%2BlNsYHHgP%2Bp%2Bh3NaGI%3D&reserved=0
