It is Maven's default settings so it seems like their recommended workflow. Any changes to the develop branch after the release branches are cut are not going to be in the 0.9.7 artifacts, so I would think you would want to bump up the version to avoid confusion.
-Alex On 4/13/20, 12:52 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <[email protected]> wrote: Hi, I don't think maven recommends doing this in concrete. Although if that was the case, we are making many changes to the real process that is really recommended, so doing something more don't thing will a problem in our case. El lun., 13 abr. 2020 a las 9:42, Alex Harui (<[email protected]>) escribió: > Why should we have a different branch strategy than what Maven recommends? > > On 4/13/20, 12:38 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > I think there's a misunderstanding about this. Now that you passed > compiler > and reach typedefs, you can see we have commits in both repositories in > develop branch with version changes. So this morning, building from > sources > is making me build 0.9.8 of compiler and typedefs. But people not > working > in release should be agnostic of all that process, and we should still > be > able to build 0.9.7-SNAPSHOT and commit to develop. > > For that reason in this thread I was proposing to create branches from > the > point where RM want to release, so people working on develop can > continue > its work. > > Right now my way to work is to not update develop with latest commits > that > increase versions in compiler and typedefs > > Thanks > > > > El mié., 8 abr. 2020 a las 19:24, Carlos Rovira (< > [email protected]>) > escribió: > > > Hi Alex, > > > > ok > > > > El mié., 8 abr. 2020 a las 19:05, Alex Harui > (<[email protected]>) > > escribió: > > > >> 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%7C4d74ceb504cb4452d60b08d7df7fab0e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223611735551844&sdata=rFLF9sHz0Nu9VLOGmseps%2BrtcMjGcwoBoWc%2FA%2BOVXcc%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%7C4d74ceb504cb4452d60b08d7df7fab0e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223611735561785&sdata=c%2FJFP1SMJV%2Fvnuy2RL2u3MMoyNnwJnPBc8goVvmM9fM%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%7C4d74ceb504cb4452d60b08d7df7fab0e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223611735561785&sdata=%2BPYjrSry%2BEM%2F55uvnEy7WXV%2FGseDonpiDsfsonRddWc%3D&reserved=0 > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Carlos Rovira > >> > > >> > > >> > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C4d74ceb504cb4452d60b08d7df7fab0e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223611735561785&sdata=%2BPYjrSry%2BEM%2F55uvnEy7WXV%2FGseDonpiDsfsonRddWc%3D&reserved=0 > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Carlos Rovira > >> > > >> > > >> > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C4d74ceb504cb4452d60b08d7df7fab0e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223611735561785&sdata=%2BPYjrSry%2BEM%2F55uvnEy7WXV%2FGseDonpiDsfsonRddWc%3D&reserved=0 > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> -- > >> Carlos Rovira > >> > >> > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C4d74ceb504cb4452d60b08d7df7fab0e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223611735561785&sdata=%2BPYjrSry%2BEM%2F55uvnEy7WXV%2FGseDonpiDsfsonRddWc%3D&reserved=0 > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > > Carlos Rovira > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C4d74ceb504cb4452d60b08d7df7fab0e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223611735561785&sdata=%2BPYjrSry%2BEM%2F55uvnEy7WXV%2FGseDonpiDsfsonRddWc%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > -- > Carlos Rovira > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C4d74ceb504cb4452d60b08d7df7fab0e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223611735561785&sdata=%2BPYjrSry%2BEM%2F55uvnEy7WXV%2FGseDonpiDsfsonRddWc%3D&reserved=0 > > > -- Carlos Rovira https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C4d74ceb504cb4452d60b08d7df7fab0e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223611735561785&sdata=%2BPYjrSry%2BEM%2F55uvnEy7WXV%2FGseDonpiDsfsonRddWc%3D&reserved=0
