Chris, I think I would like to be after Harbs and eventually Greg. Yes you can send me a link, write a document with absolutely EVERY step which I have to do in order to get release done. Even if you think that I know some steps like signing - you can in such places point into some existing document.
I would like to be able to comment on every step to confront if I really for example had to copy/paste some command or just opposite I had to do much more than only copy/paste. Thanks, Piotr czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:27 Christofer Dutz <[email protected]> napisał(a): > Hi Piotr, > > we could change the configuration to use the jgit plugin on the CI machine > and to use the default on local machines. > In that case you could do it on any machine you want (also windows) > > Who does releases in which order using which tooling ... I don't really > care ... > > I'm just happy that there's a line building up of people wanting to do so > and I get to use fresh releases :-) > > If there is anything I can help with ... just ping me and I'll be happy to > help. > > Chris > > > > Am 28.05.20, 13:18 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <[email protected]>: > > Hi Harbs, > > I would like to be a release manager as well, but using Chri's > implementation which as far as I know is in place. I would like to use > his > mentioned 3 steps and see how much things I will have to do on my own > to > make release happen. I know that I will have to do that on Mac, cause > there > some Maven/Git/Jenkins related plugin which allows use Jenkins, but it > prevents me from pushing artifacts from windows. > > I have some thoughts about above proposition, but I will wait till we > all > pass trough the release process. > > Thanks, > Piotr > > czw., 28 maj 2020 o 11:06 Christofer Dutz <[email protected]> > napisał(a): > > > Hi Harbs, > > > > makes sense. > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" <[email protected]>: > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > Thanks for you work helping with the 0.9.7 release as well. > > > > I’m definitely open to improving the structure and the process. > > > > My biggest hesitation is that I don’t understand the current > release > > process well enough. Until recently Alex was the only one who really > > understood it. Yishay just went through the process so he has a good > > understanding now. I plan on doing another release the week > following next > > (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope is that I will understand it > better > > at that point. I don’t know whether Greg Dove is willing to do a > release, > > but I think it would be very valuable to get his input as well. > > > > So my proposal is that we get some more of us familiar with the > what > > and the why of the current process. I want to understand what was > done and > > why it was done. I don’t feel comfortable having an opinion on > changing > > things until I can weigh the pros and cons. I’d like more of us to > be in > > the same position so we will be in the position of building > consensus on > > changes. The reason I hope that Greg Dove specifically does a > release is > > because I feel he’s pretty neutral on technology and I think he’ll > have > > good valuable input. > > > > So here’s my proposal: > > > > 1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3 releases in rapid succession > > without making too many changes. > > 2. Let’s try and get as many of us familiar with that process as > > possible. > > 3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss the pain points and what can > be > > done to improve the structure and/or the process with pros and cons. > Maybe > > your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe something else? Similar? > Don’t > > know, but I’d like to get to the point where we can have an > intelligent > > discussion on the topic with different points of view. I don’t think > we’re > > quite there yet. > > 4. Carefully start implementing changes. Making big changes is > often > > disruptive and is often the cause of conflict. This is nothing > specific to > > us, and there’s even accepted advice on the topic. I suggest we all > read > > and follow James Duncan Davidson's “rules for revolutionaries”[1]. > > > > I appreciate having your proposed changes to ponder the next > couple of > > weeks. > > > > In the meantime, please by all means, dive into Royale and create > > issues, pull requests, let us know difficulties, etc. I’ll make my > best > > effort to be as responsive as possible and help where I can. If > you’re > > feeling frustration, please reach out to me on Slack. > > > > Does this make sense? > > Harbs > > > > [1]http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries < > > http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries> > > > > > On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Christofer Dutz < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > congrats to the successful release of 0.9.7 … it greatly > simplified > > the last PLC4X release to have the artifacts out there in the wild. > > > > > > I would really like to see Royale as the tool in my toolbox for > > building industrial UI applications as I sort of am not that happy > with the > > other existing alternatives. > > > > > > In order to do this I know that I have some areas of expertise > I can > > offer to the project … Writing ActionScript and MXML code is > definitely not > > where I can help best. > > > > > > However I’m really good at Java, Maven and Apache > Infrastructure. I > > know that development is most active in the ASJS repo but I would be > happy > > to help on the other sides ... perhaps even help the automated > testing in > > the ASJS repo. > > > > > > I would have one proposal on how to really simplify things, > but I > > would be hesitant to start working on this before we have consensus > on this > > here. > > > It would probably involve multiple weeks of full time work in > total > > to do it for me, but I would be happy to do it, if the project would > accept > > it in the end and you folks would be willing to help with the parts > I’m not > > too deep into (Ant-, NPM build adjustments). So that’s why I’m > bringing > > this up here first. I know it might question some unwritten project > rules, > > but I would kindly ask you to not just block the discussion and > perhaps > > help re-evaluating why they became “project rules” and if the > assumptions > > were correct or still apply. > > > > > > The benefit would be: > > > > > > * Less problems in getting set-up (just clone one repo) > > > * Simpler release (Only need to release one repository … no > > updating of version information in-between) > > > * Less things that can go wrong (I remember when compiler > was > > already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest wasn’t yet … there were issues > > discussed on the list) > > > * I would use the opportunity to clean up some things in the > > maven build, because despite the probably common assumption … I’m not > > really happy with the usability of the maven build from a user’s > > perspective … I think there’s great room for improvement > > > > > > In general I would propose to merge all 3 repositories into > one. > > Right now the Maven build would probably work with different > releases of > > the compiler or typedefs but from what I can see … the Ant release > would > > probably not work without modification. So the whole idea of > releasing > > separately seems to be more a theoretical one. I think in the > history of > > FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done once (please correct me if I’m > > wrong). If there are external entities only interested in consuming > parts > > of the project, we could build source distribution for these that > only > > contain the parts they are interest in. > > > > > > > > > * I propose to move the artifacts needed for the build but > not > > being part of the build (build-tools, jburg-types) into a separate > > repository where they can be released independently and don’t cause > > confusion like they are doing right now. > > > * Then I would like to create a new repository (Let’s call > it > > “royale”) which contains 3 directories: compiler, typedefs and asjs > (or > > even with the current “royale-“ prefix, I don’t really care/mind). > > > * Now comes the biggest block … I would need to completely > > rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the core of it would be also moved > to the > > new build-tools repository. This plugin would sort of be an empty > skeleton > > to load compiler plugins. This is needed as Maven can’t build a > project > > where a plugin used in the project is also part of the build itself. > So we > > couldn’t build all-in-one go without this change. > > > * Next step would be to add a new royale-parent pom in the > new > > root of the project, the 3 old parents would be updated to use the > new > > parent and a lot of duplicated configuration could be moved there, > hereby > > greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms. > > > > > > A migration plan, could be to : > > > > > > * create a feature-branch in all 3 repositories > > > * create two new repos “royale” and “royale-build-tools” (or > > whatever you want to name them) > > > * Start with using git submodules to import the 3 branches > into > > the new (I know submodules really suck, but they would only be > needed until > > everything is finished) > > > * I would move/copy the build tools to the new repo and > start > > working on the new maven plugin > > > * Then I would need to update the old compiler repo to > produce > > something I can use as royale-maven-plugin plugins > > > * After that’s done I would update the typedefs to use the > new > > plugin > > > * After that’s done I would update the asjs repo to use the > new > > plugin > > > * Then I would add the new royale-parent pom > > > * After that’s done I would simplify and deduplicate the > > configuration > > > * Now I would definitely need some help with adjusting the > Ant > > and possibly NPM build to these changes (Most of them should be > > profile-names and maybe directory names or paths) > > > * The last thing that would be required to be done now > would be > > to remove the submodules in the “royale” repository and to import > the real > > repos > > > * After this the 3 old repos could be archived > > > > > > I am really looking forward to some open discussion on this. > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Piotr Zarzycki > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>* > > -- Piotr Zarzycki Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
