Hi all,
Today I just prepared my forks of royale again and did a full release of all 3
repos and did a video recording of that.
I did find some minor quirks which I'll whip up a PR for (no profile name or
directory changes).
As soon as I am finished cutting the video and removed lots minutes of
jewl-theme-compilation stuff I'll publish the link to the videos here.
Chris
Am 28.05.20, 18:03 schrieb "Andrew Wetmore" <cottag...@gmail.com>:
Seems like the simplest way.
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:55 PM Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Infra says there's nothing in-between all or nothing with github :-(
>
> So I'll probably go down the google doc route and have the text imported
> by one of you folks.
>
> Chris
>
>
> Am 28.05.20, 17:38 schrieb "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com>:
>
> I’m going offline for two days so I’ll be quiet for a while, but it
> might be a good idea to ask infra whether they have a solution to this
> problem.
>
> Harbs
>
> > On May 28, 2020, at 5:36 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > well perhaps searching for some experiences with this ...
> > my gut-feeling would make me expect to have the wiki content
> replaced by Viagra ads ;-)
> >
> > But it would be in git, so easily undoable ....
> >
> > I did find this however:
> >
>
https://www.growingwiththeweb.com/2016/07/enabling-pull-requests-on-github-wikis.html
> >
> > It's less convenient way, but probably safer.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > Am 28.05.20, 16:25 schrieb "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > Hmm. That’s a problem I was not aware of...
> >
> > What do folks think about enabling public editing of wikis?[1]
> >
> > Harbs
> >
> > [1]
>
https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> <
>
https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> >
> >
> >> On May 28, 2020, at 5:00 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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" <
> piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> 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 <
> christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
> >> 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" <
> piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>> 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 <
> christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
> >>> 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" <
> >>> piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>:
> >>>>
> >>>> 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 <
> >>> christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
> >>>> napisał(a):
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Harbs,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> makes sense.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Chris
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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 <
> >>>>> christofer.d...@c-ware.de> 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>*
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
--
Andrew Wetmore
http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
