date:20200412

>From the royale-typedefs repo:
1. Run ant -f releasesteps.xml Release_Step_007 -Drelease.version=0.9.7 
-DskipTests=true
This will download the artifacts then unzip and compile the source artifact.
2. Validate that the compiled artifacts match the downloaded artifacts.
3. If they do, then run ant -f releasesteps.xml Release_Step_007_Sign 
-Drelease.version=0.9.7
This will PGP sign the source ZIP and compiled JARs
4. Then run ant -f releasesteps.xml Release_Step_007_Upload 
-Drelease.version=0.9.7
This will upload the signed artifacts to Maven Release Staging. Do not "Close" 
the staging repository until the other repos have been added.

Royale_Release_Step_007 - Build # 8 - Failure!

Royale_Release_Step_007 - Build # 8 - Failure:

Check console output at 
http://apacheroyaleci2.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com:8080/job/Royale_Release_Step_007/8/
 to view the results.

Release Step 006 Succeeded

Log in to the server, open a command prompt, change directory to 
C:\jenkins\workspace\Royale_Release_Step_006 and run the following commands:
git push
git push origin org.apache.royale.typedefs-0.9.7-rc2

You will need your Apache/Github username and 2FA token.

Release Step 005 Succeeded

Log in to the server, open a command prompt, change directory to 
C:\jenkins\workspace\Royale_Release_Step_005 and run the
following commands:
git push

You will need your Apache/Github username and 2FA token.

Release Step 004 Succeeded

Log in to the server, open a command prompt, change directory to 
C:\jenkins\workspace\Royale_Release_Step_004 and run the following commands:
git push
git checkout release/0.9.7
git push -u origin release/0.9.7

You will need your Apache/Github username and 2FA token.

Royale_Release_Step_004 - Build # 18 - Still Failing!

Royale_Release_Step_004 - Build # 18 - Still Failing:

Check console output at 
http://apacheroyaleci2.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com:8080/job/Royale_Release_Step_004/18/
 to view the results.

Royale_Release_Step_004 - Build # 17 - Failure!

Royale_Release_Step_004 - Build # 17 - Failure:

Check console output at 
http://apacheroyaleci2.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com:8080/job/Royale_Release_Step_004/17/
 to view the results.

Jenkins build is back to normal : royale-asjs #1069

See

Release Step 003 Succeeded

>From the royale-compiler repo:
1. If you are releasing the utils jars (compiler-jburg-types and 
compiler-build-tools) - you have set in previous step for mentioned projects 
version ex. 1.1.0 not snapshot, run:
  ant -f releasesteps.xml Release_Step_003 -Dutils=true -Drelease.version=0.9.7 
-DskipTests=true
Otherwise, run:
  ant -f releasesteps.xml Release_Step_003 -Drelease.version=0.9.7
This will download the artifacts then unzip and compile the source artifact.
2. Validate that the compiled artifacts match the downloaded artifacts.
3. If they do, then run ant -f releasesteps.xml Release_Step_003_Sign 
-Drelease.version=0.9.7
This will PGP sign the source ZIP and compiled JARs
4. Then run ant -f releasesteps.xml Release_Step_003_Upload 
-Drelease.version=0.9.7
This will upload the signed artifacts to Maven Release Staging. If you are 
getting 401 responses from Nexus (permission denied) please be sure to have 
your apache creedentials configured in your .m2/settings.xml file. 

Feel free to use this template if you haven't got a settings.xml yet:


http://maven.apache.org/SETTINGS/1.1.0 
http://maven.apache.org/xsd/settings-1.1.0.xsd; 
xmlns="http://maven.apache.org/SETTINGS/1.1.0;
  xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance;>
  


  apache.releases.https
  {your apache user id}
  {your apache user password}

  


(Be sure to replace the placeholders with your actual apache committer id and 
your Apache password)

If you already have a settings.xml, just be sure the "server" block containing 
your credentials is added to a servers block in that file.

Do not "Close" the staging repository until the other repos have been added.

Re: Prioritize Release Jobs on CI

2020-04-12 Thread OmPrakash Muppirala

I can help set this up on Azure.  Give me some time to work out the details?

Thanks,
Om

On Sun, Apr 12, 2020, 11:49 AM Harbs  wrote:

> OK. Good to know.
>
> > On Apr 12, 2020, at 9:45 PM, Alex Harui 
> wrote:
> >
> > FWIW, I just looked and the longest job in the release steps so far is 8
> minutes.  Most are under 2 minutes.  There might be jobs later that take
> longer that we haven't run yet.  IMO, the issue isn't speed of the machine,
> it is just that we are sharing the machine with longer jobs (1 hour for
> TourDeFlexMigration).  And again, the machine will be idle for stretches of
> time while the RM verifies artifacts after each step.
> >
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 4/12/20, 11:32 AM, "Harbs"  harbs.li...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >Fair enough.
> >
> >I expect builds to be somewhere between 10 and 20 times faster on a
> powerful machine.
> >
> >Yeah. It’s probably going to be a bit of work changing the server,
> but probably worth it in the long run.
> >
> >I think I’ll try this when I do the next release unless Yishay wants
> to work with me on this for this release — but I’m not going to be able to
> help until after Passover (i.e. next week).
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Harbs
> >
> >> On Apr 12, 2020, at 9:22 PM, Alex Harui 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> The Azure portal says: Standard F2s_v2 (2 vcpus, 4 GiB memory)
> >>
> >> I think I am reading changes to the build process in your suggestions.
> I do not really want to spend more of my time on this process.  But if you
> want to do the work, that's fine with me.
> >>
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >> On 4/12/20, 10:57 AM, "Harbs"  harbs.li...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>   What kind of horsepower is included in the free Azure account?
> >>
> >>   The server I mentioned builds (considerably) faster than my own local
> machine. The ci server seems to build many times slower.
> >>
> >>   One thing we can do to minimize running server time would be to
> transfer the artifacts to storage instead of keeping them on the server. On
> AWS, I’d probably use S3. Not sure what the similar service on Azure is
> called.
> >>
> >>> On Apr 12, 2020, at 8:26 PM, Alex Harui  > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> OK, that's pretty much how I understand Azure as well.  The key thing
> is that "running" includes time where the CI server is not running any
> Jenkins jobs.  The CI Server steps might take only a few hours of actual
> server time, but there is time where the RM is verifying artifacts locally
> so you'd be paying for that or the RM would have to keep shutting down and
> restarting.
> >>>
> >>> Seems like it would be cheaper/simpler to get the free MSDN account
> and leave it running.
> >>>
> >>> -Alex
> >>>
> >>> On 4/12/20, 10:15 AM, "Harbs"  harbs.li...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  My experience is with AWS.
> >>>
> >>>  I assume Microsoft has similar offerings, but I don’t have experience
> with Azure.
> >>>
> >>>  AWS has on-demand EC2 instances which you pay for only the actual
> time that they are running.[1]
> >>>
> >>>  Instances can be started and stopped via command line (or via the web
> interface) as long as you have valid credentials to do so.
> >>>
> >>>  For example: an m5.4xlarge instance has 16 cores and costs about $1.5
> per hour. On a machine like that, a full build would probably take less
> than 10 minutes. It’s probably possible to do a full release with only a
> few hours of server time.
> >>>
> >>>  Leaving a server like that running all the time would get expensive,
> but if it’s just spun up for releases, you’d get very fast builds at a
> reasonable price.
> >>>
> >>>  I’d be happy to pay $10-$50 (and possibly more) per release to make
> the release process painless for the RM.
> >>>
> >>>  [1]
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faws.amazon.com%2Fec2%2Fpricing%2Fon-demand%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cd99d1960963240ce500c08d7df0fe417%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223131651425591sdata=HPLHT0r9qTmJhR4f4j52wtslRJaCCnqf2lj8CM3x0LE%3Dreserved=0
> <
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faws.amazon.com%2Fec2%2Fpricing%2Fon-demand%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cd99d1960963240ce500c08d7df0fe417%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223131651425591sdata=HPLHT0r9qTmJhR4f4j52wtslRJaCCnqf2lj8CM3x0LE%3Dreserved=0
> ><
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faws.amazon.com%2Fec2%2Fpricing%2Fon-demand%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cd99d1960963240ce500c08d7df0fe417%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223131651425591sdata=HPLHT0r9qTmJhR4f4j52wtslRJaCCnqf2lj8CM3x0LE%3Dreserved=0
> <
>

Release Step 002 Succeeded

Log in to the server, open a command prompt, change directory to 
C:\jenkins\workspace\Royale_Release_Step_002 and run the following commands:
git push
git push origin org.apache.royale.compiler-0.9.7-rc2

You will need your Apache/Github username and 2FA token.

Release Step 001 Succeeded

Log in to the server, open a command prompt, change directory to 
C:\jenkins\workspace\Royale_Release_Step_001 and run the following commands:
git push
git checkout release/0.9.7
git push -u origin release/0.9.7

You will need your Apache/Github username and 2FA token.

Release Step 001 Succeeded

Log in to the server, open a command prompt, change directory to 
C:\jenkins\workspace\Royale_Release_Step_001 and run the following commands:
git push
git checkout release/0.9.7
git push -u origin release/0.9.7

You will need your Apache/Github username and 2FA token.

Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 002 Succeeded

>From compiler-build-tools folder in the royale-compiler repo:
1. Run:
  ant -f releasesteps.xml Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_002 
-Drelease.version=1.2.0 -DskipTests=true
This will download the artifacts then unzip and compile the source artifact.
2. Validate that the compiled artifacts match the downloaded artifacts.
3. If they do, then run:
ant -f releasesteps.xml Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_002_Sign 
-Drelease.version=1.2.0
This will PGP sign the source ZIP and compiled JARs
4. Then run:
ant -f releasesteps.xml Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_002_Upload 
-Drelease.version=1.2.0
This will upload the signed artifacts to Maven Release Staging. If you are 
getting 401 responses from Nexus (permission denied) please be sure to have 
your apache credentials configured in your .m2/settings.xml file. 

Feel free to use this template if you haven't got a settings.xml yet:


http://maven.apache.org/SETTINGS/1.1.0 
http://maven.apache.org/xsd/settings-1.1.0.xsd; 
xmlns="http://maven.apache.org/SETTINGS/1.1.0;
  xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance;>
  


  apache.releases.https
  {your apache user id}
  {your apache user password}

  


(Be sure to replace the placeholders with your actual apache committer id and 
your Apache password)

If you already have a settings.xml, just be sure the "server" block containing 
your credentials is added to a servers block in that file.

Go to: https://repository.apache.org/ and verify that the artifacts are in the 
staging repo, then hit the close button to close the staging repo.

Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 001 Succeeded

Log in to the server, open a command prompt, change directory to 
C:\jenkins\workspace\Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_001 and run the 
following commands:
git push --set-upstream origin develop
git push origin org.apache.royale.compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-rc3

You will need your Apache/Github username and 2FA token.

Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_001 - Build # 18 - Failure!

Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_001 - Build # 18 - Failure:

Check console output at 
http://apacheroyaleci2.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com:8080/job/Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_001/18/
 to view the results.

RE: Prioritize Release Jobs on CI

I agree with that. It would be nice to have instant feedback, but the issue is 
more with waiting on the non-release jobs.

From: Alex Harui
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2020 9:45 PM
To: dev@royale.apache.org
Subject: Re: Prioritize Release Jobs on CI

FWIW, I just looked and the longest job in the release steps so far is 8 
minutes.  Most are under 2 minutes.  There might be jobs later that take longer 
that we haven't run yet.  IMO, the issue isn't speed of the machine, it is just 
that we are sharing the machine with longer jobs (1 hour for 
TourDeFlexMigration).  And again, the machine will be idle for stretches of 
time while the RM verifies artifacts after each step.

-Alex

On 4/12/20, 11:32 AM, "Harbs"  wrote:

Fair enough.

I expect builds to be somewhere between 10 and 20 times faster on a 
powerful machine.

Yeah. It’s probably going to be a bit of work changing the server, but 
probably worth it in the long run.

I think I’ll try this when I do the next release unless Yishay wants to 
work with me on this for this release — but I’m not going to be able to help 
until after Passover (i.e. next week).

Thanks,
Harbs

> On Apr 12, 2020, at 9:22 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
>
> The Azure portal says: Standard F2s_v2 (2 vcpus, 4 GiB memory)
>
> I think I am reading changes to the build process in your suggestions.  I 
do not really want to spend more of my time on this process.  But if you want 
to do the work, that's fine with me.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 4/12/20, 10:57 AM, "Harbs" mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>What kind of horsepower is included in the free Azure account?
>
>The server I mentioned builds (considerably) faster than my own local 
machine. The ci server seems to build many times slower.
>
>One thing we can do to minimize running server time would be to 
transfer the artifacts to storage instead of keeping them on the server. On 
AWS, I’d probably use S3. Not sure what the similar service on Azure is called.
>
>> On Apr 12, 2020, at 8:26 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
>>
>> OK, that's pretty much how I understand Azure as well.  The key thing is 
that "running" includes time where the CI server is not running any Jenkins 
jobs.  The CI Server steps might take only a few hours of actual server time, 
but there is time where the RM is verifying artifacts locally so you'd be 
paying for that or the RM would have to keep shutting down and restarting.
>>
>> Seems like it would be cheaper/simpler to get the free MSDN account and 
leave it running.
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 4/12/20, 10:15 AM, "Harbs"  wrote:
>>
>>   My experience is with AWS.
>>
>>   I assume Microsoft has similar offerings, but I don’t have experience 
with Azure.
>>
>>   AWS has on-demand EC2 instances which you pay for only the actual time 
that they are running.[1]
>>
>>   Instances can be started and stopped via command line (or via the web 
interface) as long as you have valid credentials to do so.
>>
>>   For example: an m5.4xlarge instance has 16 cores and costs about $1.5 
per hour. On a machine like that, a full build would probably take less than 10 
minutes. It’s probably possible to do a full release with only a few hours of 
server time.
>>
>>   Leaving a server like that running all the time would get expensive, 
but if it’s just spun up for releases, you’d get very fast builds at a 
reasonable price.
>>
>>   I’d be happy to pay $10-$50 (and possibly more) per release to make 
the release process painless for the RM.
>>
>>   
[1]https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faws.amazon.com%2Fec2%2Fpricing%2Fon-demand%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cd99d1960963240ce500c08d7df0fe417%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223131651425591sdata=HPLHT0r9qTmJhR4f4j52wtslRJaCCnqf2lj8CM3x0LE%3Dreserved=0
 
>
>>
>>> On Apr 12, 2020,

Re: Prioritize Release Jobs on CI

OK. Good to know.

> On Apr 12, 2020, at 9:45 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> 
> FWIW, I just looked and the longest job in the release steps so far is 8 
> minutes.  Most are under 2 minutes.  There might be jobs later that take 
> longer that we haven't run yet.  IMO, the issue isn't speed of the machine, 
> it is just that we are sharing the machine with longer jobs (1 hour for 
> TourDeFlexMigration).  And again, the machine will be idle for stretches of 
> time while the RM verifies artifacts after each step.
> 
> -Alex
> 
> On 4/12/20, 11:32 AM, "Harbs"  > wrote:
> 
>Fair enough.
> 
>I expect builds to be somewhere between 10 and 20 times faster on a 
> powerful machine.
> 
>Yeah. It’s probably going to be a bit of work changing the server, but 
> probably worth it in the long run.
> 
>I think I’ll try this when I do the next release unless Yishay wants to 
> work with me on this for this release — but I’m not going to be able to help 
> until after Passover (i.e. next week).
> 
>Thanks,
>Harbs
> 
>> On Apr 12, 2020, at 9:22 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
>> 
>> The Azure portal says: Standard F2s_v2 (2 vcpus, 4 GiB memory)
>> 
>> I think I am reading changes to the build process in your suggestions.  I do 
>> not really want to spend more of my time on this process.  But if you want 
>> to do the work, that's fine with me.
>> 
>> -Alex
>> 
>> On 4/12/20, 10:57 AM, "Harbs" >  > >> wrote:
>> 
>>   What kind of horsepower is included in the free Azure account?
>> 
>>   The server I mentioned builds (considerably) faster than my own local 
>> machine. The ci server seems to build many times slower.
>> 
>>   One thing we can do to minimize running server time would be to transfer 
>> the artifacts to storage instead of keeping them on the server. On AWS, I’d 
>> probably use S3. Not sure what the similar service on Azure is called.
>> 
>>> On Apr 12, 2020, at 8:26 PM, Alex Harui >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> OK, that's pretty much how I understand Azure as well.  The key thing is 
>>> that "running" includes time where the CI server is not running any Jenkins 
>>> jobs.  The CI Server steps might take only a few hours of actual server 
>>> time, but there is time where the RM is verifying artifacts locally so 
>>> you'd be paying for that or the RM would have to keep shutting down and 
>>> restarting.
>>> 
>>> Seems like it would be cheaper/simpler to get the free MSDN account and 
>>> leave it running.
>>> 
>>> -Alex
>>> 
>>> On 4/12/20, 10:15 AM, "Harbs" >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>>  My experience is with AWS.
>>> 
>>>  I assume Microsoft has similar offerings, but I don’t have experience with 
>>> Azure.
>>> 
>>>  AWS has on-demand EC2 instances which you pay for only the actual time 
>>> that they are running.[1]
>>> 
>>>  Instances can be started and stopped via command line (or via the web 
>>> interface) as long as you have valid credentials to do so.
>>> 
>>>  For example: an m5.4xlarge instance has 16 cores and costs about $1.5 per 
>>> hour. On a machine like that, a full build would probably take less than 10 
>>> minutes. It’s probably possible to do a full release with only a few hours 
>>> of server time.
>>> 
>>>  Leaving a server like that running all the time would get expensive, but 
>>> if it’s just spun up for releases, you’d get very fast builds at a 
>>> reasonable price.
>>> 
>>>  I’d be happy to pay $10-$50 (and possibly more) per release to make the 
>>> release process painless for the RM.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> [1]https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faws.amazon.com%2Fec2%2Fpricing%2Fon-demand%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cd99d1960963240ce500c08d7df0fe417%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223131651425591sdata=HPLHT0r9qTmJhR4f4j52wtslRJaCCnqf2lj8CM3x0LE%3Dreserved=0
>>>  
>>> >>  
>>>

Re: Prioritize Release Jobs on CI

FWIW, I just looked and the longest job in the release steps so far is 8 
minutes.  Most are under 2 minutes.  There might be jobs later that take longer 
that we haven't run yet.  IMO, the issue isn't speed of the machine, it is just 
that we are sharing the machine with longer jobs (1 hour for 
TourDeFlexMigration).  And again, the machine will be idle for stretches of 
time while the RM verifies artifacts after each step.

-Alex

On 4/12/20, 11:32 AM, "Harbs"  wrote:

Fair enough.

I expect builds to be somewhere between 10 and 20 times faster on a 
powerful machine.

Yeah. It’s probably going to be a bit of work changing the server, but 
probably worth it in the long run.

I think I’ll try this when I do the next release unless Yishay wants to 
work with me on this for this release — but I’m not going to be able to help 
until after Passover (i.e. next week).

Thanks,
Harbs

> On Apr 12, 2020, at 9:22 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> 
> The Azure portal says: Standard F2s_v2 (2 vcpus, 4 GiB memory)
> 
> I think I am reading changes to the build process in your suggestions.  I 
do not really want to spend more of my time on this process.  But if you want 
to do the work, that's fine with me.
> 
> -Alex
> 
> On 4/12/20, 10:57 AM, "Harbs" mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>What kind of horsepower is included in the free Azure account?
> 
>The server I mentioned builds (considerably) faster than my own local 
machine. The ci server seems to build many times slower.
> 
>One thing we can do to minimize running server time would be to 
transfer the artifacts to storage instead of keeping them on the server. On 
AWS, I’d probably use S3. Not sure what the similar service on Azure is called.
> 
>> On Apr 12, 2020, at 8:26 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
>> 
>> OK, that's pretty much how I understand Azure as well.  The key thing is 
that "running" includes time where the CI server is not running any Jenkins 
jobs.  The CI Server steps might take only a few hours of actual server time, 
but there is time where the RM is verifying artifacts locally so you'd be 
paying for that or the RM would have to keep shutting down and restarting.
>> 
>> Seems like it would be cheaper/simpler to get the free MSDN account and 
leave it running.
>> 
>> -Alex
>> 
>> On 4/12/20, 10:15 AM, "Harbs"  wrote:
>> 
>>   My experience is with AWS.
>> 
>>   I assume Microsoft has similar offerings, but I don’t have experience 
with Azure.
>> 
>>   AWS has on-demand EC2 instances which you pay for only the actual time 
that they are running.[1]
>> 
>>   Instances can be started and stopped via command line (or via the web 
interface) as long as you have valid credentials to do so.
>> 
>>   For example: an m5.4xlarge instance has 16 cores and costs about $1.5 
per hour. On a machine like that, a full build would probably take less than 10 
minutes. It’s probably possible to do a full release with only a few hours of 
server time.
>> 
>>   Leaving a server like that running all the time would get expensive, 
but if it’s just spun up for releases, you’d get very fast builds at a 
reasonable price.
>> 
>>   I’d be happy to pay $10-$50 (and possibly more) per release to make 
the release process painless for the RM.
>> 
>>   
[1]https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faws.amazon.com%2Fec2%2Fpricing%2Fon-demand%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cd99d1960963240ce500c08d7df0fe417%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223131651425591sdata=HPLHT0r9qTmJhR4f4j52wtslRJaCCnqf2lj8CM3x0LE%3Dreserved=0
 
>
>> 
>>> On Apr 12, 2020, at 7:45 PM, Alex Harui  
wrote:
>>> 
>>> I'm not very experienced with spinning up servers.  The CI server we 
are using is effectively free, based on a generous donation from Microsoft of 
MSDN accounts to ASF committers.  So I leave it up 24/7, and share the

Re: Prioritize Release Jobs on CI

Fair enough.

I expect builds to be somewhere between 10 and 20 times faster on a powerful 
machine.

Yeah. It’s probably going to be a bit of work changing the server, but probably 
worth it in the long run.

I think I’ll try this when I do the next release unless Yishay wants to work 
with me on this for this release — but I’m not going to be able to help until 
after Passover (i.e. next week).

Thanks,
Harbs

> On Apr 12, 2020, at 9:22 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> 
> The Azure portal says: Standard F2s_v2 (2 vcpus, 4 GiB memory)
> 
> I think I am reading changes to the build process in your suggestions.  I do 
> not really want to spend more of my time on this process.  But if you want to 
> do the work, that's fine with me.
> 
> -Alex
> 
> On 4/12/20, 10:57 AM, "Harbs"  > wrote:
> 
>What kind of horsepower is included in the free Azure account?
> 
>The server I mentioned builds (considerably) faster than my own local 
> machine. The ci server seems to build many times slower.
> 
>One thing we can do to minimize running server time would be to transfer 
> the artifacts to storage instead of keeping them on the server. On AWS, I’d 
> probably use S3. Not sure what the similar service on Azure is called.
> 
>> On Apr 12, 2020, at 8:26 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
>> 
>> OK, that's pretty much how I understand Azure as well.  The key thing is 
>> that "running" includes time where the CI server is not running any Jenkins 
>> jobs.  The CI Server steps might take only a few hours of actual server 
>> time, but there is time where the RM is verifying artifacts locally so you'd 
>> be paying for that or the RM would have to keep shutting down and restarting.
>> 
>> Seems like it would be cheaper/simpler to get the free MSDN account and 
>> leave it running.
>> 
>> -Alex
>> 
>> On 4/12/20, 10:15 AM, "Harbs"  wrote:
>> 
>>   My experience is with AWS.
>> 
>>   I assume Microsoft has similar offerings, but I don’t have experience with 
>> Azure.
>> 
>>   AWS has on-demand EC2 instances which you pay for only the actual time 
>> that they are running.[1]
>> 
>>   Instances can be started and stopped via command line (or via the web 
>> interface) as long as you have valid credentials to do so.
>> 
>>   For example: an m5.4xlarge instance has 16 cores and costs about $1.5 per 
>> hour. On a machine like that, a full build would probably take less than 10 
>> minutes. It’s probably possible to do a full release with only a few hours 
>> of server time.
>> 
>>   Leaving a server like that running all the time would get expensive, but 
>> if it’s just spun up for releases, you’d get very fast builds at a 
>> reasonable price.
>> 
>>   I’d be happy to pay $10-$50 (and possibly more) per release to make the 
>> release process painless for the RM.
>> 
>>   
>> [1]https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faws.amazon.com%2Fec2%2Fpricing%2Fon-demand%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cd686f90158d64b443af208d7df0ae705%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223110228240938sdata=4h8pNDGgZpz66Lau44TAVMNDhgue8FplYnAapfJoEzM%3Dreserved=0
>>  
>> >  
>> >
>> 
>>> On Apr 12, 2020, at 7:45 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I'm not very experienced with spinning up servers.  The CI server we are 
>>> using is effectively free, based on a generous donation from Microsoft of 
>>> MSDN accounts to ASF committers.  So I leave it up 24/7, and share the RDP 
>>> access on private@.  I think any other ASF committer could do the same.  
>>> IIRC, if that server actually is stopped, I have to use my personal 
>>> (unshared) MSDN credentials to start it again.   AIUI, if I actually paid 
>>> for the server, it would cost me to leave it running even if it didn't run 
>>> jobs between releases.
>>> 
>>> Is that what you are basically saying?  I think it might be best if another 
>>> committer got a CI server going via the MS donation and could leave it up 
>>> 24/7.
>>> 
>>> -Alex
>>> 
>>> On 4/12/20, 9:28 AM, "Harbs"  wrote:
>>> 
>>>  I’m willing to do this.
>>> 
>>>

Re: Prioritize Release Jobs on CI

The Azure portal says: Standard F2s_v2 (2 vcpus, 4 GiB memory)

I think I am reading changes to the build process in your suggestions.  I do 
not really want to spend more of my time on this process.  But if you want to 
do the work, that's fine with me.

-Alex

On 4/12/20, 10:57 AM, "Harbs"  wrote:

What kind of horsepower is included in the free Azure account?

The server I mentioned builds (considerably) faster than my own local 
machine. The ci server seems to build many times slower.

One thing we can do to minimize running server time would be to transfer 
the artifacts to storage instead of keeping them on the server. On AWS, I’d 
probably use S3. Not sure what the similar service on Azure is called.

> On Apr 12, 2020, at 8:26 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> 
> OK, that's pretty much how I understand Azure as well.  The key thing is 
that "running" includes time where the CI server is not running any Jenkins 
jobs.  The CI Server steps might take only a few hours of actual server time, 
but there is time where the RM is verifying artifacts locally so you'd be 
paying for that or the RM would have to keep shutting down and restarting.
> 
> Seems like it would be cheaper/simpler to get the free MSDN account and 
leave it running.
> 
> -Alex
> 
> On 4/12/20, 10:15 AM, "Harbs"  wrote:
> 
>My experience is with AWS.
> 
>I assume Microsoft has similar offerings, but I don’t have experience 
with Azure.
> 
>AWS has on-demand EC2 instances which you pay for only the actual time 
that they are running.[1]
> 
>Instances can be started and stopped via command line (or via the web 
interface) as long as you have valid credentials to do so.
> 
>For example: an m5.4xlarge instance has 16 cores and costs about $1.5 
per hour. On a machine like that, a full build would probably take less than 10 
minutes. It’s probably possible to do a full release with only a few hours of 
server time.
> 
>Leaving a server like that running all the time would get expensive, 
but if it’s just spun up for releases, you’d get very fast builds at a 
reasonable price.
> 
>I’d be happy to pay $10-$50 (and possibly more) per release to make 
the release process painless for the RM.
> 
>
[1]https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faws.amazon.com%2Fec2%2Fpricing%2Fon-demand%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cd686f90158d64b443af208d7df0ae705%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223110228240938sdata=4h8pNDGgZpz66Lau44TAVMNDhgue8FplYnAapfJoEzM%3Dreserved=0
 

> 
>> On Apr 12, 2020, at 7:45 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
>> 
>> I'm not very experienced with spinning up servers.  The CI server we are 
using is effectively free, based on a generous donation from Microsoft of MSDN 
accounts to ASF committers.  So I leave it up 24/7, and share the RDP access on 
private@.  I think any other ASF committer could do the same.  IIRC, if that 
server actually is stopped, I have to use my personal (unshared) MSDN 
credentials to start it again.   AIUI, if I actually paid for the server, it 
would cost me to leave it running even if it didn't run jobs between releases.
>> 
>> Is that what you are basically saying?  I think it might be best if 
another committer got a CI server going via the MS donation and could leave it 
up 24/7.
>> 
>> -Alex
>> 
>> On 4/12/20, 9:28 AM, "Harbs"  wrote:
>> 
>>   I’m willing to do this.
>> 
>>   Considering that the release will be run infrequently, it should be 
doable to have a relatively powerful server that could be spun up on demand. 
This is something I have setup for my own releases.
>> 
>>   The only complication would be that each RM would need valid 
credentials to spin up the server.
>> 
>>   Harbs
>> 
>>> On Apr 12, 2020, at 7:10 PM, Alex Harui  
wrote:
>>> 
>>> A better solution, IMO, is for someone else to offer up a CI server 
only for release jobs.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>

Re: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 001 Succeeded

I think you will have to revert:

6382da0137fc16df15804df6c7233c3a0307b520

982933da3c7cc195e437292ac83df713092544b9

61eb66e2a98ed0592315a4c490b193469f794958

7a5d97802c15ce25bd5a7b5c791071324e1e9e00

1266488e1beb98ac1bb794f67f60391ef8e8500a

1958f8aee2e5fb662dd22861fe2e115d3b85d0b2

And then use 3 as the RC number.  I used 2 in my testing and I think Carlos 
might have used 1.

Sorry about that,
-Alex

From: Yishay Weiss 
Reply-To: "dev@royale.apache.org" 
Date: Sunday, April 12, 2020 at 10:39 AM
To: "dev@royale.apache.org" 
Subject: RE: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 001 Succeeded

Not sure what you mean. This one?

commit 1266488e1beb98ac1bb794f67f60391ef8e8500a 

 Author: aharui  

  Date: 
  Tue Apr 7 07:35:14 2020 + 




[maven-release-plugin] prepare for next development iteration   



  diff 
--git a/compiler-build-tools/pom.xml b/compiler-build-tools/pom.xml 

index 76850efe8..62844bcbd 100644   

 --- 
a/compiler-build-tools/pom.xml  

 +++ b/compiler-build-tools/pom.xml 

  @@ -28,7 
+28,7 @@

   org.apache.royale.compiler
   compiler-build-tools
-  1.2.0
+  1.2.1-SNAPSHOT^M
   maven-plugin

   Apache Royale: Build Tools
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@
 
scm:git:https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/royale-compiler.git
 
scm:git:https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/royale-compiler.git
 https://github.com/apache/royale-compiler
-org.apache.royale.compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-rc2
+HEAD^M
   

   
@@ -316,4 +316,4 @@
 
   

-2020-04-07T07:34:27Z
+^M


From: Alex Harui 
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2020 7:12:26 PM
To: dev@royale.apache.org 
Subject: Re: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 001 Succeeded

Argh, I forgot to revert the version number change commit.  Otherwise the 
release will be 1.2.1.  Can you revert and start over?  Let me know if you need 
help with the revert.

-Alex

On 4/12/20, 5:19 AM, "Yishay Weiss"  wrote:

I used remote dektop. PMC members should see the correct access info now.

From: Andrew Wetmore
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2020 1:40 PM
To: Apache Royale Development
Subject: Re: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 001 Succeeded

Oh, thank you! I was too shy to ask that.

On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 7:21 AM Yishay Weiss  wrote:

> Pardon the silly question but how do I login tp the server and open a
> command prompt?
>
> From: apacheroyal...@gmail.com
> Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2020 12:45 PM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org
> Subject: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 001 Succeeded
>
> Log in to the server, open a command prompt, change directory to
> C:\jenkins\workspace\Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_001 and run
> the following commands:
> git push --set-upstream origin develop
> git push origin org.apache.royale.compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-rc1
>
> You will need your Apache/Github username and 2FA token.
>
>

--
Andrew Wetmore

Re: Prioritize Release Jobs on CI

What kind of horsepower is included in the free Azure account?

The server I mentioned builds (considerably) faster than my own local machine. 
The ci server seems to build many times slower.

One thing we can do to minimize running server time would be to transfer the 
artifacts to storage instead of keeping them on the server. On AWS, I’d 
probably use S3. Not sure what the similar service on Azure is called.

> On Apr 12, 2020, at 8:26 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> 
> OK, that's pretty much how I understand Azure as well.  The key thing is that 
> "running" includes time where the CI server is not running any Jenkins jobs.  
> The CI Server steps might take only a few hours of actual server time, but 
> there is time where the RM is verifying artifacts locally so you'd be paying 
> for that or the RM would have to keep shutting down and restarting.
> 
> Seems like it would be cheaper/simpler to get the free MSDN account and leave 
> it running.
> 
> -Alex
> 
> On 4/12/20, 10:15 AM, "Harbs"  wrote:
> 
>My experience is with AWS.
> 
>I assume Microsoft has similar offerings, but I don’t have experience with 
> Azure.
> 
>AWS has on-demand EC2 instances which you pay for only the actual time 
> that they are running.[1]
> 
>Instances can be started and stopped via command line (or via the web 
> interface) as long as you have valid credentials to do so.
> 
>For example: an m5.4xlarge instance has 16 cores and costs about $1.5 per 
> hour. On a machine like that, a full build would probably take less than 10 
> minutes. It’s probably possible to do a full release with only a few hours of 
> server time.
> 
>Leaving a server like that running all the time would get expensive, but 
> if it’s just spun up for releases, you’d get very fast builds at a reasonable 
> price.
> 
>I’d be happy to pay $10-$50 (and possibly more) per release to make the 
> release process painless for the RM.
> 
>
> [1]https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faws.amazon.com%2Fec2%2Fpricing%2Fon-demand%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C9f9fa6f357c74ddd43fb08d7df051cfd%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223085366319686sdata=%2Fq01Kgdo28ZEr%2BnR9Rh8uwXZz4TGt%2FdV60cx7XW9ixs%3Dreserved=0
>  
> 
> 
>> On Apr 12, 2020, at 7:45 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
>> 
>> I'm not very experienced with spinning up servers.  The CI server we are 
>> using is effectively free, based on a generous donation from Microsoft of 
>> MSDN accounts to ASF committers.  So I leave it up 24/7, and share the RDP 
>> access on private@.  I think any other ASF committer could do the same.  
>> IIRC, if that server actually is stopped, I have to use my personal 
>> (unshared) MSDN credentials to start it again.   AIUI, if I actually paid 
>> for the server, it would cost me to leave it running even if it didn't run 
>> jobs between releases.
>> 
>> Is that what you are basically saying?  I think it might be best if another 
>> committer got a CI server going via the MS donation and could leave it up 
>> 24/7.
>> 
>> -Alex
>> 
>> On 4/12/20, 9:28 AM, "Harbs"  wrote:
>> 
>>   I’m willing to do this.
>> 
>>   Considering that the release will be run infrequently, it should be doable 
>> to have a relatively powerful server that could be spun up on demand. This 
>> is something I have setup for my own releases.
>> 
>>   The only complication would be that each RM would need valid credentials 
>> to spin up the server.
>> 
>>   Harbs
>> 
>>> On Apr 12, 2020, at 7:10 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
>>> 
>>> A better solution, IMO, is for someone else to offer up a CI server only 
>>> for release jobs.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>

RE: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 001 Succeeded

Not sure what you mean. This one?

commit 1266488e1beb98ac1bb794f67f60391ef8e8500a 

 Author: aharui  

  Date: 
  Tue Apr 7 07:35:14 2020 + 




[maven-release-plugin] prepare for next development iteration   



  diff 
--git a/compiler-build-tools/pom.xml b/compiler-build-tools/pom.xml 

index 76850efe8..62844bcbd 100644   

 --- 
a/compiler-build-tools/pom.xml  

 +++ b/compiler-build-tools/pom.xml 

  @@ -28,7 
+28,7 @@

   org.apache.royale.compiler
   compiler-build-tools
-  1.2.0
+  1.2.1-SNAPSHOT^M
   maven-plugin

   Apache Royale: Build Tools
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@
 
scm:git:https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/royale-compiler.git
 
scm:git:https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/royale-compiler.git
 https://github.com/apache/royale-compiler
-org.apache.royale.compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-rc2
+HEAD^M
   

   
@@ -316,4 +316,4 @@
 
   

-2020-04-07T07:34:27Z
+^M


From: Alex Harui 
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2020 7:12:26 PM
To: dev@royale.apache.org 
Subject: Re: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 001 Succeeded

Argh, I forgot to revert the version number change commit.  Otherwise the 
release will be 1.2.1.  Can you revert and start over?  Let me know if you need 
help with the revert.

-Alex

On 4/12/20, 5:19 AM, "Yishay Weiss"  wrote:

I used remote dektop. PMC members should see the correct access info now.

From: Andrew Wetmore
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2020 1:40 PM
To: Apache Royale Development
Subject: Re: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 001 Succeeded

Oh, thank you! I was too shy to ask that.

On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 7:21 AM Yishay Weiss  wrote:

> Pardon the silly question but how do I login tp the server and open a
> command prompt?
>
> From: apacheroyal...@gmail.com
> Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2020 12:45 PM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org
> Subject: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 001 Succeeded
>
> Log in to the server, open a command prompt, change directory to
> C:\jenkins\workspace\Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_001 and run
> the following commands:
> git push --set-upstream origin develop
> git push origin org.apache.royale.compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-rc1
>
> You will need your Apache/Github username and 2FA token.
>
>

--
Andrew Wetmore


https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcottage14.blogspot.com%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C6ed261ad0ce842bbb61608d7dedbcddc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637222907944479562sdata=OMdWUHO%2FZYabLs5Wzs5MFNXVuDk5Zyk7JL33oxZHiFc%3Dreserved=0


From: Alex Harui
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2020 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 001 Succeeded

Argh, I forgot to revert the version number change commit.  Otherwise the 
release will be 1.2.1.  Can you revert and start over?  Let me know if you need 
help with the revert.

-Alex

On 4/12/20, 5:19 AM, "Yishay Weiss"  wrote:

I used remote dektop. PMC members should see the correct access info now.

From: Andrew Wetmore
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2020 1:40 PM
To: Apache Royale Development
Subject: Re:

Release Step 001 Succeeded

Log in to the server, open a command prompt, change directory to 
C:\jenkins\workspace\Royale_Release_Step_001 and run the following commands:
git push
git checkout release/0.9.7
git push -u origin release/0.9.7

You will need your Apache/Github username and 2FA token.

Re: Prioritize Release Jobs on CI

OK, that's pretty much how I understand Azure as well.  The key thing is that 
"running" includes time where the CI server is not running any Jenkins jobs.  
The CI Server steps might take only a few hours of actual server time, but 
there is time where the RM is verifying artifacts locally so you'd be paying 
for that or the RM would have to keep shutting down and restarting.

Seems like it would be cheaper/simpler to get the free MSDN account and leave 
it running.

-Alex

On 4/12/20, 10:15 AM, "Harbs"  wrote:

My experience is with AWS.

I assume Microsoft has similar offerings, but I don’t have experience with 
Azure.

AWS has on-demand EC2 instances which you pay for only the actual time that 
they are running.[1]

Instances can be started and stopped via command line (or via the web 
interface) as long as you have valid credentials to do so.

For example: an m5.4xlarge instance has 16 cores and costs about $1.5 per 
hour. On a machine like that, a full build would probably take less than 10 
minutes. It’s probably possible to do a full release with only a few hours of 
server time.

Leaving a server like that running all the time would get expensive, but if 
it’s just spun up for releases, you’d get very fast builds at a reasonable 
price.

I’d be happy to pay $10-$50 (and possibly more) per release to make the 
release process painless for the RM.

[1]https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faws.amazon.com%2Fec2%2Fpricing%2Fon-demand%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C9f9fa6f357c74ddd43fb08d7df051cfd%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223085366319686sdata=%2Fq01Kgdo28ZEr%2BnR9Rh8uwXZz4TGt%2FdV60cx7XW9ixs%3Dreserved=0

> On Apr 12, 2020, at 7:45 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> 
> I'm not very experienced with spinning up servers.  The CI server we are 
using is effectively free, based on a generous donation from Microsoft of MSDN 
accounts to ASF committers.  So I leave it up 24/7, and share the RDP access on 
private@.  I think any other ASF committer could do the same.  IIRC, if that 
server actually is stopped, I have to use my personal (unshared) MSDN 
credentials to start it again.   AIUI, if I actually paid for the server, it 
would cost me to leave it running even if it didn't run jobs between releases.
> 
> Is that what you are basically saying?  I think it might be best if 
another committer got a CI server going via the MS donation and could leave it 
up 24/7.
> 
> -Alex
> 
> On 4/12/20, 9:28 AM, "Harbs"  wrote:
> 
>I’m willing to do this.
> 
>Considering that the release will be run infrequently, it should be 
doable to have a relatively powerful server that could be spun up on demand. 
This is something I have setup for my own releases.
> 
>The only complication would be that each RM would need valid 
credentials to spin up the server.
> 
>Harbs
> 
>> On Apr 12, 2020, at 7:10 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
>> 
>> A better solution, IMO, is for someone else to offer up a CI server only 
for release jobs.
> 
> 
>

Re: Prioritize Release Jobs on CI

My experience is with AWS.

I assume Microsoft has similar offerings, but I don’t have experience with 
Azure.

AWS has on-demand EC2 instances which you pay for only the actual time that 
they are running.[1]

Instances can be started and stopped via command line (or via the web 
interface) as long as you have valid credentials to do so.

For example: an m5.4xlarge instance has 16 cores and costs about $1.5 per hour. 
On a machine like that, a full build would probably take less than 10 minutes. 
It’s probably possible to do a full release with only a few hours of server 
time.

Leaving a server like that running all the time would get expensive, but if 
it’s just spun up for releases, you’d get very fast builds at a reasonable 
price.

I’d be happy to pay $10-$50 (and possibly more) per release to make the release 
process painless for the RM.

[1]https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/on-demand/ 

> On Apr 12, 2020, at 7:45 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> 
> I'm not very experienced with spinning up servers.  The CI server we are 
> using is effectively free, based on a generous donation from Microsoft of 
> MSDN accounts to ASF committers.  So I leave it up 24/7, and share the RDP 
> access on private@.  I think any other ASF committer could do the same.  
> IIRC, if that server actually is stopped, I have to use my personal 
> (unshared) MSDN credentials to start it again.   AIUI, if I actually paid for 
> the server, it would cost me to leave it running even if it didn't run jobs 
> between releases.
> 
> Is that what you are basically saying?  I think it might be best if another 
> committer got a CI server going via the MS donation and could leave it up 
> 24/7.
> 
> -Alex
> 
> On 4/12/20, 9:28 AM, "Harbs"  wrote:
> 
>I’m willing to do this.
> 
>Considering that the release will be run infrequently, it should be doable 
> to have a relatively powerful server that could be spun up on demand. This is 
> something I have setup for my own releases.
> 
>The only complication would be that each RM would need valid credentials 
> to spin up the server.
> 
>Harbs
> 
>> On Apr 12, 2020, at 7:10 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
>> 
>> A better solution, IMO, is for someone else to offer up a CI server only for 
>> release jobs.
> 
> 
>

Re: Prioritize Release Jobs on CI

I'm not very experienced with spinning up servers.  The CI server we are using 
is effectively free, based on a generous donation from Microsoft of MSDN 
accounts to ASF committers.  So I leave it up 24/7, and share the RDP access on 
private@.  I think any other ASF committer could do the same.  IIRC, if that 
server actually is stopped, I have to use my personal (unshared) MSDN 
credentials to start it again.   AIUI, if I actually paid for the server, it 
would cost me to leave it running even if it didn't run jobs between releases.

Is that what you are basically saying?  I think it might be best if another 
committer got a CI server going via the MS donation and could leave it up 24/7.

-Alex

On 4/12/20, 9:28 AM, "Harbs"  wrote:

I’m willing to do this.

Considering that the release will be run infrequently, it should be doable 
to have a relatively powerful server that could be spun up on demand. This is 
something I have setup for my own releases.

The only complication would be that each RM would need valid credentials to 
spin up the server.

Harbs

> On Apr 12, 2020, at 7:10 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> 
> A better solution, IMO, is for someone else to offer up a CI server only 
for release jobs.

Re: Prioritize Release Jobs on CI

I’m willing to do this.

Considering that the release will be run infrequently, it should be doable to 
have a relatively powerful server that could be spun up on demand. This is 
something I have setup for my own releases.

The only complication would be that each RM would need valid credentials to 
spin up the server.

Harbs

> On Apr 12, 2020, at 7:10 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> 
> A better solution, IMO, is for someone else to offer up a CI server only for 
> release jobs.

Re: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 001 Succeeded

Argh, I forgot to revert the version number change commit.  Otherwise the 
release will be 1.2.1.  Can you revert and start over?  Let me know if you need 
help with the revert.

-Alex

On 4/12/20, 5:19 AM, "Yishay Weiss"  wrote:

I used remote dektop. PMC members should see the correct access info now.

From: Andrew Wetmore
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2020 1:40 PM
To: Apache Royale Development
Subject: Re: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 001 Succeeded

Oh, thank you! I was too shy to ask that.

On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 7:21 AM Yishay Weiss  wrote:

> Pardon the silly question but how do I login tp the server and open a
> command prompt?
>
> From: apacheroyal...@gmail.com
> Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2020 12:45 PM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org
> Subject: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 001 Succeeded
>
> Log in to the server, open a command prompt, change directory to
> C:\jenkins\workspace\Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_001 and run
> the following commands:
> git push --set-upstream origin develop
> git push origin org.apache.royale.compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-rc1
>
> You will need your Apache/Github username and 2FA token.
>
>

--
Andrew Wetmore


https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcottage14.blogspot.com%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C6ed261ad0ce842bbb61608d7dedbcddc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637222907944479562sdata=OMdWUHO%2FZYabLs5Wzs5MFNXVuDk5Zyk7JL33oxZHiFc%3Dreserved=0

Re: Prioritize Release Jobs on CI

On 4/12/20, 8:10 AM, "Yishay Weiss" wrote:

One thing that bothers me with the CI is that if there are jobs already
running or in the queue, it might take a long time to see the results of a
release step. I’d like to be able to tell Jenkins to prioritize the release
steps and reschedule all running or waiting jobs, which is what this plugin [1]
seems to do. Should we install it?

Having to wait for other jobs is definitely a pain point. I generally kill
jobs in the queue. But I've found that killing running jobs often leaves them
in a state where they can't run again without manual clean up so I just go do
something else while the running job finishes up and make sure my next job is
the only thing in the queue.

A better solution, IMO, is for someone else to offer up a CI server only for
release jobs.

A second-best solution, IMO, is to disable the slow jobs, especially Tour De
Flex Migration, when we're trying to get a release out. Unfortunately, my
experience is that disabling a job makes the last known artifacts unavailable,
which is undesirable. I've pondered how to make it easier to temporarily edit
the slow jobs to make them run only on manual trigger and restore the timer and
other triggers when done. Maybe there's a way to do that.

HTH,
-Alex

[1]
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fplugins.jenkins.io%2Faccelerated-build-now-plugin%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cc07205e6034d4a1e5c6808d7def39a55%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223010153382080sdata=%2BmbdkWSphZVgY9rKGjcqjtZlOM89XzPbo%2FH6f3NUVWk%3Dreserved=0

Prioritize Release Jobs on CI

One thing that bothers me with the CI is that if there are jobs already running 
or in the queue, it might take a long time to see the results of a release 
step. I’d like to be able to tell Jenkins to prioritize the release steps and 
reschedule all running or waiting jobs, which is what this plugin [1] seems to 
do. Should we install it?

[1] https://plugins.jenkins.io/accelerated-build-now-plugin/

Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 002 Succeeded

>From compiler-build-tools folder in the royale-compiler repo:
1. Run:
  ant -f releasesteps.xml Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_002 
-Drelease.version=1.2.0 -DskipTests=true
This will download the artifacts then unzip and compile the source artifact.
2. Validate that the compiled artifacts match the downloaded artifacts.
3. If they do, then run:
ant -f releasesteps.xml Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_002_Sign 
-Drelease.version=1.2.0
This will PGP sign the source ZIP and compiled JARs
4. Then run:
ant -f releasesteps.xml Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_002_Upload 
-Drelease.version=1.2.0
This will upload the signed artifacts to Maven Release Staging. If you are 
getting 401 responses from Nexus (permission denied) please be sure to have 
your apache credentials configured in your .m2/settings.xml file. 

Feel free to use this template if you haven't got a settings.xml yet:


http://maven.apache.org/SETTINGS/1.1.0 
http://maven.apache.org/xsd/settings-1.1.0.xsd; 
xmlns="http://maven.apache.org/SETTINGS/1.1.0;
  xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance;>
  


  apache.releases.https
  {your apache user id}
  {your apache user password}

  


(Be sure to replace the placeholders with your actual apache committer id and 
your Apache password)

If you already have a settings.xml, just be sure the "server" block containing 
your credentials is added to a servers block in that file.

Go to: https://repository.apache.org/ and verify that the artifacts are in the 
staging repo, then hit the close button to close the staging repo.

Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_002 - Build # 7 - Failure!

Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_002 - Build # 7 - Failure:

Check console output at 
http://apacheroyaleci2.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com:8080/job/Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_002/7/
 to view the results.

RE: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 001 Succeeded

I used remote dektop. PMC members should see the correct access info now.

From: Andrew Wetmore
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2020 1:40 PM
To: Apache Royale Development
Subject: Re: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 001 Succeeded

Oh, thank you! I was too shy to ask that.

On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 7:21 AM Yishay Weiss  wrote:

> Pardon the silly question but how do I login tp the server and open a
> command prompt?
>
> From: apacheroyal...@gmail.com
> Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2020 12:45 PM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org
> Subject: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 001 Succeeded
>
> Log in to the server, open a command prompt, change directory to
> C:\jenkins\workspace\Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_001 and run
> the following commands:
> git push --set-upstream origin develop
> git push origin org.apache.royale.compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-rc1
>
> You will need your Apache/Github username and 2FA token.
>
>

--
Andrew Wetmore

http://cottage14.blogspot.com/

Re: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 001 Succeeded

2020-04-12 Thread Andrew Wetmore

Oh, thank you! I was too shy to ask that.

On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 7:21 AM Yishay Weiss  wrote:

> Pardon the silly question but how do I login tp the server and open a
> command prompt?
>
> From: apacheroyal...@gmail.com
> Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2020 12:45 PM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org
> Subject: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 001 Succeeded
>
> Log in to the server, open a command prompt, change directory to
> C:\jenkins\workspace\Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_001 and run
> the following commands:
> git push --set-upstream origin develop
> git push origin org.apache.royale.compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-rc1
>
> You will need your Apache/Github username and 2FA token.
>
>

-- 
Andrew Wetmore

http://cottage14.blogspot.com/

RE: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 001 Succeeded

Pardon the silly question but how do I login tp the server and open a command 
prompt?

From: apacheroyal...@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2020 12:45 PM
To: dev@royale.apache.org
Subject: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 001 Succeeded

Log in to the server, open a command prompt, change directory to 
C:\jenkins\workspace\Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_001 and run the 
following commands:
git push --set-upstream origin develop
git push origin org.apache.royale.compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-rc1

You will need your Apache/Github username and 2FA token.

Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 001 Succeeded

Log in to the server, open a command prompt, change directory to 
C:\jenkins\workspace\Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_001 and run the 
following commands:
git push --set-upstream origin develop
git push origin org.apache.royale.compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-rc1

You will need your Apache/Github username and 2FA token.

Release Step 001 Succeeded

Log in to the server, open a command prompt, change directory to 
C:\jenkins\workspace\Royale_Release_Step_001 and run the following commands:
git push
git checkout release/0.9.7
git push -u origin release/0.9.7

You will need your Apache/Github username and 2FA token.

Release Step 001 Succeeded