Hi Yishay, what Chris tries to (kindly) say is that by now, the release process we did on CI has the same flaws as the one is currently done. Both are not reproducible. Ergo, doing a Maven + Ant process is currently not bringing anything profitable (but a huge complexity). Unless something is achieved these days changing that fact, a simpler process like the one proposed by Chris [1] is just what we need to release quick and often.
I know my comment here will not change nothing, but just think I need to left it clear. HTH to understand a bit better the situation :) Carlos [1] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki/New-Release-Manager El mar., 21 abr. 2020 a las 8:22, Christofer Dutz (< [email protected]>) escribió: > Hi Yishay, > > I'm just following what you are doing and comparing that to what we did, > so I'm just curious. Technically as soon as you're past 9, it have all the > compiler and typedef artifacts in a release version and they are also > located in the nexus staging repository. > > So if you're going to re-do all of the steps again for a new release, then > just ignore my comment. If not, I would like to know. > > Chris > ________________________________ > Von: Yishay Weiss <[email protected]> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. April 2020 08:16 > An: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Betreff: RE: How did you folks get past step 007? > > This is premature in my opinion. We are still working on it, and have not > announced a release. > > From: Christofer Dutz<mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:10 AM > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: How did you folks get past step 007? > > Ping? > > I mean if the builds aren't reproducible, what are the reproducible builds > worth. > > Just want to make sure we weren't the only ones accruals respecting this > self prescribed rule. > > Chris > ________________________________ > Von: Christofer Dutz <[email protected]> > Gesendet: Montag, 20. April 2020 10:39 > An: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Betreff: How did you folks get past step 007? > > Hi all, > > so as I saw you’re at one of the steps in the framework repo, I thought: > “How on earth did they get past 007?” > So I dug up the email, set my java version to the same as on the server > and ran the scripts … > > ant -f releasesteps.xml Release_Step_007 -Drelease.version=0.9.7 > -DskipTests=true > > and the step failed with exactly the same error message as our attempts > did: > > notlast: > compare_files: > [echo] comparing royale-typedefs-node-0.9.7-typedefs.swc > BUILD FAILED > /Users/christofer.dutz/Projects/Apache/Royale/royale/royale-typedefs/releasesteps.xml:167: > The following error occurred while executing this line: > /Users/christofer.dutz/Projects/Apache/Royale/royale/royale-typedefs/releasesteps.xml:185: > The following error occurred while executing this line: > /Users/christofer.dutz/Projects/Apache/Royale/royale/royale-typedefs/releasesteps.xml:196: > The following error occurred while executing this line: > /Users/christofer.dutz/Projects/Apache/Royale/royale/royale-typedefs/releasesteps.xml:232: > royale-typedefs-node-0.9.7-typedefs.swc does not match > Total time: 1 minute 21 seconds > > Even the differences were identical to mine (except that the timecode > differences seem to have been fixed or have gone away till the next time > our daylight-saving time is out of sync again) > > So I thought: “Ok so this just used the release version of the compiler > that I created, so let’s update that to the one you folks staged”. > So I ran: > ant -f releasesteps.xml Release_Step_003 -Drelease.version=0.9.7 > and > ant -f releasesteps.xml Release_Step_007 -Drelease.version=0.9.7 > -DskipTests=true > after the first, so I was using the same compiler version. But it still > failed. > > When comparing the swcs of the node typedef IntelliJ tells me that the > catalog.xml of the node module built on the CI server contains a “http” > script (class) and the one built locally contains a “net” instead. > However the problem with the changed order of properties in the > library.swc seems to have been fixed by latest changes in the compiler. > > So I thought … ok … let me check the others (the ant script aborts after > the first error). > And the “js” typedef has more differences: > > * The SHA-256 checksums differ > * Document.cookie is String when built locally but was Object when > built on the CI server > * The number after the $ sign for quite some subclasses differs. > I gave up after that. > > So I can’t really see this is a reproducible build. > > However I don’t think they have to be, but if you insist on reproducible > build, I think they should be reproducible for anyone or they aren’t worth > being called “reproducible”. > > Chris > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
