Hi Chris, FWIK, there's no way to do a PR for wiki in Github. I think should be done other way, maybe google doc or something
HTH Carlos El jue., 28 may. 2020 a las 16:00, Christofer Dutz (< [email protected]>) escribió: > Hi all, > > so I just had a look ... it seems as if the "fork" feature on github > doesn't fork the wiki too ... > So I could create my own pages, but not create PRs for documentation ... > or I just didn't find the docs on how to do it. > Do you have any pointers for me? > > Chris > > > Am 28.05.20, 13:55 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <[email protected]>: > > Chris, > > We are not using confluence at all. We are using Wiki [1], but you can > write document in whatever place you wanted to if you are not > comfortable > with wiki. > > Andrew, > > Will you be willing to translate that document into our Wiki manner ? > > [1] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki > > Thanks, > Piotr > > czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:43 Christofer Dutz <[email protected]> > napisał(a): > > > Hi Piotr, > > > > I think the Royale project could grant my user write permissions to > > confluence. > > Then I could write such a document there. > > > > But I could also do a google doc outside, if this is more convenient. > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > Am 28.05.20, 13:39 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" < > [email protected]>: > > > > 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>* > > > > > > -- > > Piotr Zarzycki > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>* > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
