Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Royale Compiler Build Tools 1.2.0

[Alex Harui]

+1
Package 
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/royale/compiler-build-tools/1.2.0/rc3/apache-royale-compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-source-release.zip
Java 1.8
OS: Mac OS X x86_64 10.15.3
Source kit signatures match: y
Source kit builds: y
README is ok: ${readme.ok}
RELEASE_NOTES is ok: ${releasenotes.ok}
NOTICE is ok: y
LICENSE is ok: y
No unapproved licenses or archives in source package: y
No unapproved binaries in source package: y

Package 
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/royale/compiler-build-tools/1.2.0/rc3/binaries/compiler-build-tools-1.2.0.jar
Binary signatures match: y
NOTICE is ok: y
LICENSE is ok: y


On 4/13/20, 1:25 PM, "apacheroyal...@gmail.com"  
wrote:

Hi,
This is the vote for the 1.2.0 release of Apache Royale Compiler Build 
Tools.  The release candidate can be found here;

https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdist.apache.org%2Frepos%2Fdist%2Fdev%2Froyale%2Fcompiler-build-tools%2F1.2.0%2Frc3%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C9a20aef1f286470f9e8208d7dfe8d92e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637224063475812378sdata=PlejZrlgFR9QjOE72kbxkkqsvviEca9nvBnNnDiGo50%3Dreserved=0

Before voting please review the section,'What are the ASF requirements on 
approving a release?', at: 

https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apache.org%2Fdev%2Frelease.html%23approving-a-releasedata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C9a20aef1f286470f9e8208d7dfe8d92e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637224063475812378sdata=58y%2FWUvXrTjjJg571Oz%2FiU5C5lP7qE4t6bBklkKOrpE%3Dreserved=0

At a minimum you would be expected to check that:
- SHA and signed packages are correct
- NOTICE and LICENSE files are all fine
- That "mvn clean install" in the root of the source package completes 
successfully
- That you can modify other compiler poms to use that version of 
compiler-build-tools and build the compiler.

The KEYS file is at 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdist.apache.org%2Frepos%2Fdist%2Frelease%2Froyale%2FKEYSdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C9a20aef1f286470f9e8208d7dfe8d92e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637224063475812378sdata=bqBeWMn2C3h7mUaLhv%2FaN9SRf34YOhImKBUW1qfId3o%3Dreserved=0

Maven artifacts are staged here: 

https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frepository.apache.org%2Fcontent%2Frepositories%2Forgapacheroyale-1064data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C9a20aef1f286470f9e8208d7dfe8d92e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637224063475812378sdata=wQr%2FCjzSLInKtuFLXFUF6nbihs%2BT6%2BBk8UamiehVQr0%3Dreserved=0

Please vote to approve this release:
+1 Approve the release
-1 Disapprove the release (please provide specific comments to why)

This vote will be open for 72 hours or until a result can be called.

The vote passes if there is:
- At least 3 +1 votes from the PMC
- More positive votes than negative votes

Remember that this is a 'beta-quality' release so expect there will be many 
bugs found. IMO the goal is not to try to find and fix bugs in the RC, but to 
make sure we have the packaging right, and enough functionality that folks will 
have some success trying to use it.  People who are not in PMC are also 
encouraged to test out the release and vote, although their votes will not be 
binding, they can influence how the PMC votes.

When voting please indicate what OS, IDE, Flash Player version and AIR 
version you tested with.  

For your convenience, there is an ant script that automates the common 
steps to validate a release.  Instead of individually downloading the package 
and signature files, unzipping, etc, you can instead:
1) create an empty folder,
2) download into that folder this file:

https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdist.apache.org%2Frepos%2Fdist%2Fdev%2Froyale%2Fcompiler-build-tools%2F1.2.0%2Frc3%2FApproveBuildTools.xmldata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C9a20aef1f286470f9e8208d7dfe8d92e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637224063475812378sdata=kABovizQZ6HpSj8qpkrnJyNzf6lBQ0LuuD0vV6artjc%3Dreserved=0
3) run the script:
   ant -e -f ApproveBuildTools.xml -Drelease.version=1.2.0 -Drc=3

You are not required to use this script, and more testing of the packages 
and build results are always encouraged.

Please put all discussion about this release in the DISCUSSION thread not 
this VOTE thread.

Thanks,
Yishay Weiss

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

[Alex Harui]

I haven't tried it myself, but I'm pretty sure we need to re-import the KEYS 
file.

Steps should be something like:
1) download https://downloads.apache.org/royale/KEYS
2) gpg --import 

HTH,
-Alex

On 4/13/20, 3:27 PM, "Carlos Rovira"  wrote:

Hi,

I'm having problems verifying signature. I can't check the public key with
the apache key servers in documentation.
What should you do in this cases? (what command you use that is
currently working for you?)

thanks



El lun., 13 abr. 2020 a las 22:33,  escribió:

> This is the discussion thread.
>
> Thanks,
> Yishay Weiss



-- 
Carlos Rovira

https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosroviradata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb54c230f8d544ca6b3d308d7dff9c4e9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637224136219344275sdata=WSWe9Ydbss1pANoyMOI2GIM9Wi%2F8GIq2%2Bi0IbUXFZBY%3Dreserved=0

Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi,

I'm having problems verifying signature. I can't check the public key with
the apache key servers in documentation.
What should you do in this cases? (what command you use that is
currently working for you?)

thanks



El lun., 13 abr. 2020 a las 22:33,  escribió:

> This is the discussion thread.
>
> Thanks,
> Yishay Weiss



-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Re: Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_004 - Build # 14 - Still Failing!

[Alex Harui]

The Nexus sig validation is separate from KEYS, IIRC.  Usually it means the 
.asc files did not get uploaded from your local machine.

But it looks like the second attempt worked.  Congratulations!

-Alex

On 4/13/20, 12:32 PM, "Yishay Weiss"  wrote:

Looks like signature validation failed when closing the staging repo. I 
hope updating the KEYS file helps.

From: apacheroyal...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 10:23 PM
To: dev@royale.apache.org
Subject: Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_004 - Build # 14 - Still 
Failing!

Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_004 - Build # 14 - Still Failing:

Check console output at 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapacheroyaleci2.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com%3A8080%2Fjob%2FRoyale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_004%2F14%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C05ad47635c494b619c5a08d7dfe1756d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637224031750562625sdata=TQL%2BQBwelCma18BReno14hA%2BNR2Pe9NN7%2FAfF4waTbw%3Dreserved=0
 to view the results.

[DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Royale 1.2.0

[apacheroyaleci]

This is the discussion thread.

Thanks,
Yishay Weiss

[VOTE] Release Apache Royale Compiler Build Tools 1.2.0

[apacheroyaleci]

Hi,
This is the vote for the 1.2.0 release of Apache Royale Compiler Build Tools.  
The release candidate can be found here;
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/royale/compiler-build-tools/1.2.0/rc3/

Before voting please review the section,'What are the ASF requirements on 
approving a release?', at: 
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release

At a minimum you would be expected to check that:
- SHA and signed packages are correct
- NOTICE and LICENSE files are all fine
- That "mvn clean install" in the root of the source package completes 
successfully
- That you can modify other compiler poms to use that version of 
compiler-build-tools and build the compiler.

The KEYS file is at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/royale/KEYS

Maven artifacts are staged here: 
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheroyale-1064

Please vote to approve this release:
+1 Approve the release
-1 Disapprove the release (please provide specific comments to why)

This vote will be open for 72 hours or until a result can be called.

The vote passes if there is:
- At least 3 +1 votes from the PMC
- More positive votes than negative votes

Remember that this is a 'beta-quality' release so expect there will be many 
bugs found. IMO the goal is not to try to find and fix bugs in the RC, but to 
make sure we have the packaging right, and enough functionality that folks will 
have some success trying to use it.  People who are not in PMC are also 
encouraged to test out the release and vote, although their votes will not be 
binding, they can influence how the PMC votes.

When voting please indicate what OS, IDE, Flash Player version and AIR version 
you tested with.  

For your convenience, there is an ant script that automates the common steps to 
validate a release.  Instead of individually downloading the package and 
signature files, unzipping, etc, you can instead:
1) create an empty folder,
2) download into that folder this file:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/royale/compiler-build-tools/1.2.0/rc3/ApproveBuildTools.xml
3) run the script:
   ant -e -f ApproveBuildTools.xml -Drelease.version=1.2.0 -Drc=3

You are not required to use this script, and more testing of the packages and 
build results are always encouraged.

Please put all discussion about this release in the DISCUSSION thread not this 
VOTE thread.

Thanks,
Yishay Weiss

Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 004 Succeeded

[apacheroyaleci]

Log in to the server, open a command prompt and change directory to:
C:\jenkins\workspace\Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_004\dist\dev
1. Run svn --username= commit -m "Compiler Build Tools 1.2.0 
rc 3"
This will upload the signed artifacts to dist.apache.org.

You will need your svn password.

RE: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 003 Succeeded

[Yishay Weiss]

Finally saw the correct instruction. I was confused because the steps 1-4 are 
numbered, but the last instruction looks like a footnote without a number. I 
would put the last instruction as (5) right underneath (4) and leave the m2 
settings xml as a footnote.


From: Alex Harui 
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 10:15:59 PM
To: dev@royale.apache.org 
Subject: Re: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 003 Succeeded

The one from today looks ok.  The one you quoted was from my practice runs over 
the weekend which I fixed.

That folder does exist so step 003's message is correct.  I think Step 004 is 
failing because you missed the last instruction in 002's email.

-Alex

On 4/13/20, 12:08 PM, "Yishay Weiss"  wrote:

Looks like the email wasn’t sent correctly, which is why I got the ‘folder 
already exists’ message instead.

From: apacheroyal...@gmail.com
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2020 8:36 AM
To: dev@royale.apache.org
Subject: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 003 Succeeded

ERROR: File 'email.txt' does not exist


From: Alex Harui
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 10:16 PM
To: dev@royale.apache.org
Subject: Re: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 003 Succeeded

The one from today looks ok.  The one you quoted was from my practice runs over 
the weekend which I fixed.

That folder does exist so step 003's message is correct.  I think Step 004 is 
failing because you missed the last instruction in 002's email.

-Alex

On 4/13/20, 12:08 PM, "Yishay Weiss"  wrote:

Looks like the email wasn’t sent correctly, which is why I got the ‘folder 
already exists’ message instead.

From: apacheroyal...@gmail.com
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2020 8:36 AM
To: dev@royale.apache.org
Subject: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 003 Succeeded

ERROR: File 'email.txt' does not exist

Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_004 - Build # 14 - Still Failing!

[apacheroyaleci]

Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_004 - Build # 14 - Still Failing:

Check console output at 
http://apacheroyaleci2.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com:8080/job/Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_004/14/
 to view the results.

Re: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 003 Succeeded

[Alex Harui]

The one from today looks ok.  The one you quoted was from my practice runs over 
the weekend which I fixed.

That folder does exist so step 003's message is correct.  I think Step 004 is 
failing because you missed the last instruction in 002's email.

-Alex

On 4/13/20, 12:08 PM, "Yishay Weiss"  wrote:

Looks like the email wasn’t sent correctly, which is why I got the ‘folder 
already exists’ message instead.

From: apacheroyal...@gmail.com
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2020 8:36 AM
To: dev@royale.apache.org
Subject: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 003 Succeeded

ERROR: File 'email.txt' does not exist

RE: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 003 Succeeded

[Yishay Weiss]

Looks like the email wasn’t sent correctly, which is why I got the ‘folder 
already exists’ message instead.

From: apacheroyal...@gmail.com
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2020 8:36 AM
To: dev@royale.apache.org
Subject: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 003 Succeeded

ERROR: File 'email.txt' does not exist

Re: Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_004 - Build # 13 - Still Failing!

[Alex Harui]

Sorry, I grabbed the wrong thread.  In step 002, the last sentence should be 
"hit the close button"

On 4/13/20, 12:00 PM, "Yishay Weiss"  wrote:

Actually, this was the message that I saw:

Folder 1.2.0 already exists.  Continue to next step.



From: Alex Harui 
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:49:37 PM
To: dev@royale.apache.org ; dev@royale.apache.org 

Subject: Re: Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_004 - Build # 13 - 
Still Failing!

Yishay, it looks like you missed the final instruction in the success email:

" hit the close button to close the staging repo."

Ideas on how to make that more obvious are welcome.

-Alex

On 4/13/20, 11:46 AM, "apacheroyal...@gmail.com"  
wrote:

Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_004 - Build # 13 - Still 
Failing:

Check console output at 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapacheroyaleci2.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com%3A8080%2Fjob%2FRoyale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_004%2F13%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C353b02f3b89f4e678ac908d7dfdce0ac%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637224012070510390sdata=ErB8fI7BtWMlTXMzV1anA1WqZo7SXl0RnsgPQePLBp4%3Dreserved=0
 to view the results.

RE: Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_004 - Build # 13 - Still Failing!

[Yishay Weiss]

Actually, this was the message that I saw:

Folder 1.2.0 already exists.  Continue to next step.



From: Alex Harui 
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:49:37 PM
To: dev@royale.apache.org ; dev@royale.apache.org 

Subject: Re: Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_004 - Build # 13 - Still 
Failing!

Yishay, it looks like you missed the final instruction in the success email:

" hit the close button to close the staging repo."

Ideas on how to make that more obvious are welcome.

-Alex

On 4/13/20, 11:46 AM, "apacheroyal...@gmail.com"  
wrote:

Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_004 - Build # 13 - Still Failing:

Check console output at 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapacheroyaleci2.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com%3A8080%2Fjob%2FRoyale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_004%2F13%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cd60983be5640464cf3c008d7dfdaf1be%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637224003762357250sdata=ZeYdbNIJYq30vclbOwT5v6zFH1GpcyiF3XY1iKkYe1s%3Dreserved=0
 to view the results.

Re: Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_004 - Build # 13 - Still Failing!

[Alex Harui]

Yishay, it looks like you missed the final instruction in the success email:

" hit the close button to close the staging repo."

Ideas on how to make that more obvious are welcome.

-Alex

On 4/13/20, 11:46 AM, "apacheroyal...@gmail.com"  
wrote:

Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_004 - Build # 13 - Still Failing:

Check console output at 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapacheroyaleci2.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com%3A8080%2Fjob%2FRoyale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_004%2F13%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cd60983be5640464cf3c008d7dfdaf1be%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637224003762357250sdata=ZeYdbNIJYq30vclbOwT5v6zFH1GpcyiF3XY1iKkYe1s%3Dreserved=0
 to view the results.

Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_004 - Build # 13 - Still Failing!

[apacheroyaleci]

Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_004 - Build # 13 - Still Failing:

Check console output at 
http://apacheroyaleci2.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com:8080/job/Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_004/13/
 to view the results.

Re: Add Key to Royale Key Server

[Alex Harui]

Dist.a.o uses Subversion.

To get the KEYS file, try creating a folder to store the working copy on your 
machine, then in that folder:

svn checkout --non-recursive https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist dist
cd .\dist
svn update --non-recursive release
cd release
svn update --depth infinity royale

While you're at it, also run:
svn update --non-recursive dev
cd dev
svn update --depth infinity royale

The flags like --non-recursive are important so you don't pull down all Apache 
releases (gigs of data).

Then after modifying KEYS, run:
svn add
svn commit -m "adding Yishay's key"

HTH,
-Alex

On 4/13/20, 11:29 AM, "Yishay Weiss"  wrote:

> Please run a diff before committing to make sure nothing else got changed.

I guess what I was missing was how to commit files to dist.a.o

On 4/13/20, 10:26 AM, "Yishay Weiss"  wrote:

Hi Andrew,

It’s not clear to me from our docs [1] what the equivalent of 
–keyserver is as described in this doc [2].

Alex, I don’t understand how to manually copy a file. Under which repo 
is it?

[1] 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Finfra.apache.org%2Frelease-signing.html%23keyserver-uploaddata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca85abedeaf8349703c6e08d7dfd8a853%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223993940679674sdata=GraNGrLD%2Fw3UJWRK90m9fbmmHRvxoIn%2FzvMYrHU4xas%3Dreserved=0
[2] 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gnupg.org%2Fgph%2Fen%2Fmanual%2Fx457.htmldata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca85abedeaf8349703c6e08d7dfd8a853%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223993940679674sdata=2xc%2BHdjB3FP8jvfLdBE2kky9y%2F2mod3X%2BTje3wIcNg8%3Dreserved=0
From: Andrew Wetmore
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 7:27 PM
To: Apache Royale Development
Subject: Re: Add Key to Royale Key Server

For my sins, I am responsible for maintaining that document. Please let 
me
know if parts are unclear or inaccurate/

Andrew



Virus-free.

https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.avast.com%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca85abedeaf8349703c6e08d7dfd8a853%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223993940679674sdata=SAfgxfrMGP20OWHjvbfvSLaDkv30OuzQYKvm%2FlFF8Uo%3Dreserved=0>


<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:08 PM Alex Harui  
wrote:

> What documentation steps are you trying to follow?  Are you using:
>
> [1] 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Finfra.apache.org%2Frelease-signing.html%23key-basicsdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca85abedeaf8349703c6e08d7dfd8a853%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223993940689673sdata=vWX3xFvZtxGrhmgWKrzXR892%2FcqXoYjfjARmN486olY%3Dreserved=0
> [2] 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Finfra.apache.org%2Fopenpgp.html%23gnupgdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca85abedeaf8349703c6e08d7dfd8a853%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223993940689673sdata=Mj8sQFZJhiXfcsWHRRegzEnfqJm6GR0tY7CKgqYUyqk%3Dreserved=0
> [3] 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Finfra.apache.org%2Frelease-signing.html%23keyserver-uploaddata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca85abedeaf8349703c6e08d7dfd8a853%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223993940689673sdata=OzvaQPzG6kLgL4i9VzXD7VTIgPpH8hpGhaXfl36FSK0%3Dreserved=0
>
> I don't 

Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_004 - Build # 12 - Still Failing!

[apacheroyaleci]

Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_004 - Build # 12 - Still Failing:

Check console output at 
http://apacheroyaleci2.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com:8080/job/Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_004/12/
 to view the results.

RE: Add Key to Royale Key Server

[Yishay Weiss]

> Please run a diff before committing to make sure nothing else got changed.

I guess what I was missing was how to commit files to dist.a.o

On 4/13/20, 10:26 AM, "Yishay Weiss"  wrote:

Hi Andrew,

It’s not clear to me from our docs [1] what the equivalent of –keyserver is 
as described in this doc [2].

Alex, I don’t understand how to manually copy a file. Under which repo is 
it?

[1] 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Finfra.apache.org%2Frelease-signing.html%23keyserver-uploaddata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C7028ca35daf34a45252508d7dfcfda19%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223956117877217sdata=KjdwYfS%2FSJdgRUK3WO%2F9YYvRIXK9gRkYgVy9uSttZGY%3Dreserved=0
[2] 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gnupg.org%2Fgph%2Fen%2Fmanual%2Fx457.htmldata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C7028ca35daf34a45252508d7dfcfda19%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223956117877217sdata=Eke6eB4mmQZQaI5O8CfUf%2BgJNuX815%2FtiiJ4Lc2xwdk%3Dreserved=0
From: Andrew Wetmore
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 7:27 PM
To: Apache Royale Development
Subject: Re: Add Key to Royale Key Server

For my sins, I am responsible for maintaining that document. Please let me
know if parts are unclear or inaccurate/

Andrew



Virus-free.

https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.avast.com%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C7028ca35daf34a45252508d7dfcfda19%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223956117877217sdata=F%2Fe6kf8WOg5J97VR1tLsoOwPX2Ao%2FLyiDu7xqB3PaSo%3Dreserved=0>


<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:08 PM Alex Harui  wrote:

> What documentation steps are you trying to follow?  Are you using:
>
> [1] 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Finfra.apache.org%2Frelease-signing.html%23key-basicsdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C7028ca35daf34a45252508d7dfcfda19%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223956117877217sdata=CB0Ilk1qmlUN2AerKGjp5e%2BOj2EPWBUUMZtngC0sONs%3Dreserved=0
> [2] 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Finfra.apache.org%2Fopenpgp.html%23gnupgdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C7028ca35daf34a45252508d7dfcfda19%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223956117887211sdata=eQI3ZwO%2FCcVIai%2BIKIJWGQ8UX10zmKNEBuPBI4UfYz4%3Dreserved=0
> [3] 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Finfra.apache.org%2Frelease-signing.html%23keyserver-uploaddata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C7028ca35daf34a45252508d7dfcfda19%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223956117887211sdata=FDO0etbJVv1X71J9yVVf%2FaXwMAs6Q0JNri9f7Dk7v1U%3Dreserved=0
>
> I don't think there is a keyserver there.  I think you use the commands in
> the header mentioned in [1] and manually copy your public key into that
> file.  I think that's what they mean by "append".
>
> HTH
> -Alex
>
>
> On 4/13/20, 8:37 AM, "Yishay Weiss"  wrote:
>
> How do I do that?
>
> Running
>
> gpg --keyserver
> 

Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_004 - Build # 11 - Failure!

[apacheroyaleci]

Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_004 - Build # 11 - Failure:

Check console output at 
http://apacheroyaleci2.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com:8080/job/Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_004/11/
 to view the results.

Re: Add Key to Royale Key Server

[Alex Harui]

The Royale keys file is in this folder: URL: 
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/royale

If you run: gpg --armor --export yishayw
It should dump the public key to the console.  It should look like:

-BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

mQINBE/I8a4BEADdwvM00n8ONYffYsKF99gX/U+4XwsQIecpPUr/s/bpc0OOp/1m
... (many lines of characters)
-END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-

If you run: gpg --list-sigs yishayw
It should dump something like this:

pub   4096R/DA9CCFF2 2013-12-17
  Key fingerprint = E7F7 B7D4 944C AC45 7A14  C0E9 83E0 431C DA9C CFF2
uid  Yishay
sub   4096R/BDBEDCEA 2013-12-17

Make sure the pub and sub start with 4096 or higher.  If both are good, then 
that output gets appended to KEYS.  Open the KEYS file to see how it looks.  If 
you want you can use ">>" on the command line to append to KEYS.
Please run a diff before committing to make sure nothing else got changed.

AFAIK, apache does not run/host a keyserver.  A few other places do and it is 
recommended but not required to upload your key to a key server so others can 
find it should they need it.  But many people will just import the KEYS file 
instead.  Two key servers are linked to on this page: 
https://infra.apache.org/release-signing.html#keyserver

FWIW, you are asking all of the same questions I had many years ago so you are 
on the right track.

HTH,
-Alex


On 4/13/20, 10:26 AM, "Yishay Weiss"  wrote:

Hi Andrew,

It’s not clear to me from our docs [1] what the equivalent of –keyserver is 
as described in this doc [2].

Alex, I don’t understand how to manually copy a file. Under which repo is 
it?

[1] 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Finfra.apache.org%2Frelease-signing.html%23keyserver-uploaddata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C7028ca35daf34a45252508d7dfcfda19%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223956117877217sdata=KjdwYfS%2FSJdgRUK3WO%2F9YYvRIXK9gRkYgVy9uSttZGY%3Dreserved=0
[2] 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gnupg.org%2Fgph%2Fen%2Fmanual%2Fx457.htmldata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C7028ca35daf34a45252508d7dfcfda19%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223956117877217sdata=Eke6eB4mmQZQaI5O8CfUf%2BgJNuX815%2FtiiJ4Lc2xwdk%3Dreserved=0
From: Andrew Wetmore
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 7:27 PM
To: Apache Royale Development
Subject: Re: Add Key to Royale Key Server

For my sins, I am responsible for maintaining that document. Please let me
know if parts are unclear or inaccurate/

Andrew



Virus-free.

https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.avast.com%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C7028ca35daf34a45252508d7dfcfda19%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223956117877217sdata=F%2Fe6kf8WOg5J97VR1tLsoOwPX2Ao%2FLyiDu7xqB3PaSo%3Dreserved=0


<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:08 PM Alex Harui  wrote:

> What documentation steps are you trying to follow?  Are you using:
>
> [1] 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Finfra.apache.org%2Frelease-signing.html%23key-basicsdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C7028ca35daf34a45252508d7dfcfda19%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223956117877217sdata=CB0Ilk1qmlUN2AerKGjp5e%2BOj2EPWBUUMZtngC0sONs%3Dreserved=0
> [2] 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Finfra.apache.org%2Fopenpgp.html%23gnupgdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C7028ca35daf34a45252508d7dfcfda19%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223956117887211sdata=eQI3ZwO%2FCcVIai%2BIKIJWGQ8UX10zmKNEBuPBI4UfYz4%3Dreserved=0
> [3] 

RE: Add Key to Royale Key Server

[Yishay Weiss]

Hi Andrew,

It’s not clear to me from our docs [1] what the equivalent of –keyserver is as 
described in this doc [2].

Alex, I don’t understand how to manually copy a file. Under which repo is it?

[1] https://infra.apache.org/release-signing.html#keyserver-upload
[2] https://www.gnupg.org/gph/en/manual/x457.html
From: Andrew Wetmore
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 7:27 PM
To: Apache Royale Development
Subject: Re: Add Key to Royale Key Server

For my sins, I am responsible for maintaining that document. Please let me
know if parts are unclear or inaccurate/

Andrew


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:08 PM Alex Harui  wrote:

> What documentation steps are you trying to follow?  Are you using:
>
> [1] https://infra.apache.org/release-signing.html#key-basics
> [2] https://infra.apache.org/openpgp.html#gnupg
> [3] https://infra.apache.org/release-signing.html#keyserver-upload
>
> I don't think there is a keyserver there.  I think you use the commands in
> the header mentioned in [1] and manually copy your public key into that
> file.  I think that's what they mean by "append".
>
> HTH
> -Alex
>
>
> On 4/13/20, 8:37 AM, "Yishay Weiss"  wrote:
>
> How do I do that?
>
> Running
>
> gpg --keyserver
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdist.apache.org%2Frepos%2Fdist%2Frelease%2Froyale%2FKEYSdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C9f3ffa5d7aba40534dfc08d7dfc09b7f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223890664391728sdata=y5I%2FFuXEP5BXil4xaqCwESgJO%2BpVtL4KLclBR79d%2Bbw%3Dreserved=0
> --send-keys 
>
> results in
>
> gpg: keyserver send failed: No data
>
>
>
>

--
Andrew Wetmore

http://cottage14.blogspot.com/

Re: Staging Folder Number

[Alex Harui]

Try this link: https://repository.apache.org/#stagingRepositories

Otherwise, in the left pane should be: "Build Promotion".  Expand that.
Then you should see "Staging Repositories".  Click on that.
Then  a datagrid should show up in the main area and scroll down.

PS: I already looked and the answer is 1064.  The staging repo 1063 was created 
by me and is closed.

HTH,
-Alex

On 4/13/20, 10:16 AM, "Yishay Weiss"  wrote:

I couldn’t figure it out using these instructions [1]. How do I look for 
the folder name?

[1] The number of the staging folder in 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frepository.apache.org%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C61279c8bf30e43314e8108d7dfce6618%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223949880115972sdata=EUd0Zf5KPs4h4YPMhcTQNn%2FfPu0WSNMflEceE%2FHYhJc%3Dreserved=0.
  The folder name will be something like orgapacheroyale-1234.  Only enter the 
1234.

Staging Folder Number

[Yishay Weiss]

I couldn’t figure it out using these instructions [1]. How do I look for the 
folder name?

[1] The number of the staging folder in https://repository.apache.org.  The 
folder name will be something like orgapacheroyale-1234.  Only enter the 1234.

Re: Add Key to Royale Key Server

[Andrew Wetmore]

For my sins, I am responsible for maintaining that document. Please let me
know if parts are unclear or inaccurate/

Andrew


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:08 PM Alex Harui  wrote:

> What documentation steps are you trying to follow?  Are you using:
>
> [1] https://infra.apache.org/release-signing.html#key-basics
> [2] https://infra.apache.org/openpgp.html#gnupg
> [3] https://infra.apache.org/release-signing.html#keyserver-upload
>
> I don't think there is a keyserver there.  I think you use the commands in
> the header mentioned in [1] and manually copy your public key into that
> file.  I think that's what they mean by "append".
>
> HTH
> -Alex
>
>
> On 4/13/20, 8:37 AM, "Yishay Weiss"  wrote:
>
> How do I do that?
>
> Running
>
> gpg --keyserver
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdist.apache.org%2Frepos%2Fdist%2Frelease%2Froyale%2FKEYSdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C9f3ffa5d7aba40534dfc08d7dfc09b7f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223890664391728sdata=y5I%2FFuXEP5BXil4xaqCwESgJO%2BpVtL4KLclBR79d%2Bbw%3Dreserved=0
> --send-keys 
>
> results in
>
> gpg: keyserver send failed: No data
>
>
>
>

-- 
Andrew Wetmore

http://cottage14.blogspot.com/

Re: Add Key to Royale Key Server

[Alex Harui]

What documentation steps are you trying to follow?  Are you using:

[1] https://infra.apache.org/release-signing.html#key-basics
[2] https://infra.apache.org/openpgp.html#gnupg
[3] https://infra.apache.org/release-signing.html#keyserver-upload

I don't think there is a keyserver there.  I think you use the commands in the 
header mentioned in [1] and manually copy your public key into that file.  I 
think that's what they mean by "append".

HTH
-Alex


On 4/13/20, 8:37 AM, "Yishay Weiss"  wrote:

How do I do that?

Running

gpg --keyserver 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdist.apache.org%2Frepos%2Fdist%2Frelease%2Froyale%2FKEYSdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C9f3ffa5d7aba40534dfc08d7dfc09b7f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223890664391728sdata=y5I%2FFuXEP5BXil4xaqCwESgJO%2BpVtL4KLclBR79d%2Bbw%3Dreserved=0
 --send-keys 

results in

gpg: keyserver send failed: No data

Re: Create new branch when creating a release (was Fwd: Royale Releases)

[Alex Harui]

It is Maven's default settings so it seems like their recommended workflow.  
Any changes to the develop branch after the release branches are cut are not 
going to be in the 0.9.7 artifacts, so I would think you would want to bump up 
the version to avoid confusion.

-Alex

On 4/13/20, 12:52 AM, "Carlos Rovira"  wrote:

Hi,
I don't think maven recommends doing this in concrete. Although if that was
the case, we are making many changes to the real process that is really
recommended, so doing something more don't thing will a problem in our case.

El lun., 13 abr. 2020 a las 9:42, Alex Harui ()
escribió:

> Why should we have a different branch strategy than what Maven recommends?
>
> On 4/13/20, 12:38 AM, "Carlos Rovira"  wrote:
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> I think there's a misunderstanding about this. Now that you passed
> compiler
> and reach typedefs, you can see we have commits in both repositories 
in
> develop branch with version changes. So this morning, building from
> sources
> is making me build 0.9.8 of compiler and typedefs. But people not
> working
> in release should be agnostic of all that process, and we should still
> be
> able to build 0.9.7-SNAPSHOT and commit to develop.
>
> For that reason in this thread I was proposing to create branches from
> the
> point where RM want to release, so people working on develop can
> continue
> its work.
>
> Right now my way to work is to not update develop with latest commits
> that
> increase versions in compiler and typedefs
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> El mié., 8 abr. 2020 a las 19:24, Carlos Rovira (<
> carlosrov...@apache.org>)
> escribió:
>
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > ok
> >
> > El mié., 8 abr. 2020 a las 19:05, Alex Harui
> ()
> > escribió:
> >
> >> Hi Carlos,
> >>
> >> When I get to step 14, a release branch will be cut.  I'm still
> back on
> >> step 2.
> >>
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >> On 4/8/20, 12:06 AM, "Carlos Rovira" 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Alex,
> >>
> >> I think we didn't understand each other. In this thread I was
> asking
> >> to
> >> avoid the use of "develop" branch to do the release, instead
> use a new
> >> branch (let's say we name it "release-process-0.9.7" and the RM
> can do
> >> whatever he needs there. In that way, the rest of us are not
> affected.
> >>
> >> Right now in Royale-compiler we have 2 commits about releasing
> >> build-tools,
> >> that I want to avoid. Those in particular are not problematic,
> but
> >> will be
> >> the ones for compiler, typedefs and framework in case the
> release is
> >> not
> >> done quickly.
> >>
> >> The main problems in the way we do now:
> >> - If release need to be aborted, will have lots of
> >> "[maven-release-plugin]"
> >> commits done and reverted.
> >> - developers using the current snapshot will need to not update
> the
> >> commits
> >> with the new versions to continue building the snapshot that is
> used
> >> in the
> >> rest of repos.
> >>
> >> so steps 14,18 and 22 was not what I was referring to.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >>
> >> El vie., 3 abr. 2020 a las 6:38, Alex Harui
> ( >> >)
> >> escribió:
> >>
> >> > Steps 14, 18, and 22 in [1] dictate the use of branches.
> >> >
> >> > [1]
> >> >
> >>
> 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FTask-List-For-Royale-Releasesdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C4d74ceb504cb4452d60b08d7df7fab0e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223611735551844sdata=rFLF9sHz0Nu9VLOGmseps%2BrtcMjGcwoBoWc%2FA%2BOVXcc%3Dreserved=0
> >> >
> >> > -Alex
> >> >
> >> > On 4/2/20, 4:53 PM, "Carlos Rovira" 
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > sending this again, since it was missed in the other
> thread,
> >> but is
> >> > something not related.
> >> >
> >> > -- Forwarded message -
> >> > De: Carlos Rovira 
> >> > Date: jue., 2 abr. 2020 a las 14:32
> >> > Subject: Re: Royale Releases
> >> > To: Apache Royale Development 
> >> >
> >> >
   

Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 003 Succeeded

[apacheroyaleci]

Folder 1.2.0 already exists.  Continue to next step.

RE: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 002 Succeeded

[Yishay Weiss]

Hi Chris,

I was indeed comparing the wrong jars. After looking at the ant script I can 
see that what needs to be compared is between jars downloaded from the archive 
[1] and the binaries build a second time from src [2]

The ant script fails with a message if the binaries don’t match, but does not 
echo a confirmation that they do match, other than that build was successful. I 
guess the email was a bit misleading in making me think there was a manual step 
involved.

FWIW, the script does not compare javadocs.jar from what I could tell, but I’ll 
have a look at your PR as soon as I’ve got time.

Thanks!

[1] C:\temp7\artifacts\archive\
[2] C:\temp7\sources\target

From: Christofer Dutz
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 2:55 PM
To: dev@royale.apache.org
Subject: Re: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 002 Succeeded

Hi Yishay,

ok ... we never talked about comparing the JavaDocs ... just the binary 
artifacts.
I updated the maven-javadoc-plugin to 3.2.0 which is the first reproducible 
version.
Please feel free to merge the PRs (I also disabled the Javadoc in the typedefs 
as this doesn't make any sense there)

Chris

Am 13.04.20, 12:46 schrieb "Yishay Weiss" :


>2. Validate that the compiled artifacts match the downloaded artifacts.

What does this mean? Looks to me like the jars are different [1]. I’ll see 
if I understand why.

[1] C:\temp1>git diff 
C:\temp1\artifacts\archive\compiler-build-tools\target\local-release-dir\org\apache\royale\compiler\compiler-build-tools\1.2.0\compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-javadoc.jar
 
C:\jenkins\workspace\Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_001\compiler-build-tools\target\compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-javadoc.jar
diff --git 
"a/C:\\temp1\\artifacts\\archive\\compiler-build-tools\\target\\local-release-dir\\org\\apache\\royale\\compiler\\compiler-build-tools\\1.2.0\\compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-javadoc.jar"
 
"b/C:\\jenkins\\workspace\\Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_001\\compiler-build-tools\\target\\compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-javadoc.jar"
index 994c837..9010c33 100644
Binary files 
"a/C:\\temp1\\artifacts\\archive\\compiler-build-tools\\target\\local-release-dir\\org\\apache\\royale\\compiler\\compiler-build-tools\\1.2.0\\compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-javadoc.jar"
 and 
"b/C:\\jenkins\\workspace\\Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_001\\compiler-build-tools\\target\\compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-javadoc.jar"
 differ

Re: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 002 Succeeded

[Christofer Dutz]

Hi Yishay,

ok ... we never talked about comparing the JavaDocs ... just the binary 
artifacts. 
I updated the maven-javadoc-plugin to 3.2.0 which is the first reproducible 
version.
Please feel free to merge the PRs (I also disabled the Javadoc in the typedefs 
as this doesn't make any sense there)

Chris

Am 13.04.20, 12:46 schrieb "Yishay Weiss" :


>2. Validate that the compiled artifacts match the downloaded artifacts.

What does this mean? Looks to me like the jars are different [1]. I’ll see 
if I understand why.

[1] C:\temp1>git diff 
C:\temp1\artifacts\archive\compiler-build-tools\target\local-release-dir\org\apache\royale\compiler\compiler-build-tools\1.2.0\compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-javadoc.jar
 
C:\jenkins\workspace\Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_001\compiler-build-tools\target\compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-javadoc.jar
diff --git 
"a/C:\\temp1\\artifacts\\archive\\compiler-build-tools\\target\\local-release-dir\\org\\apache\\royale\\compiler\\compiler-build-tools\\1.2.0\\compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-javadoc.jar"
 
"b/C:\\jenkins\\workspace\\Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_001\\compiler-build-tools\\target\\compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-javadoc.jar"
index 994c837..9010c33 100644
Binary files 
"a/C:\\temp1\\artifacts\\archive\\compiler-build-tools\\target\\local-release-dir\\org\\apache\\royale\\compiler\\compiler-build-tools\\1.2.0\\compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-javadoc.jar"
 and 
"b/C:\\jenkins\\workspace\\Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_001\\compiler-build-tools\\target\\compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-javadoc.jar"
 differ

RE: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 002 Succeeded

[Yishay Weiss]

>2. Validate that the compiled artifacts match the downloaded artifacts.

What does this mean? Looks to me like the jars are different [1]. I’ll see if I 
understand why.

[1] C:\temp1>git diff 
C:\temp1\artifacts\archive\compiler-build-tools\target\local-release-dir\org\apache\royale\compiler\compiler-build-tools\1.2.0\compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-javadoc.jar
 
C:\jenkins\workspace\Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_001\compiler-build-tools\target\compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-javadoc.jar
diff --git 
"a/C:\\temp1\\artifacts\\archive\\compiler-build-tools\\target\\local-release-dir\\org\\apache\\royale\\compiler\\compiler-build-tools\\1.2.0\\compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-javadoc.jar"
 
"b/C:\\jenkins\\workspace\\Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_001\\compiler-build-tools\\target\\compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-javadoc.jar"
index 994c837..9010c33 100644
Binary files 
"a/C:\\temp1\\artifacts\\archive\\compiler-build-tools\\target\\local-release-dir\\org\\apache\\royale\\compiler\\compiler-build-tools\\1.2.0\\compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-javadoc.jar"
 and 
"b/C:\\jenkins\\workspace\\Royale_Compiler_Build_Tools_Release_Step_001\\compiler-build-tools\\target\\compiler-build-tools-1.2.0-javadoc.jar"
 differ

Re: Prioritize Release Jobs on CI

[Alex Harui]

I don't know much about Azure.  I could not figure out how to add a user.  I 
have to stop work for tonight.  If you have explicit steps I can try again 
tomorrow evening.

-Alex

On 4/13/20, 12:34 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala"  wrote:

You wont have to share your MSDN credentials.  You can add me as a user in
your Azure account.  I should be able to access it.

I can't do it via RDP because cloning an image is done at the Azure level,
not at the VM level.  Something along these lines:

https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdevblogs.microsoft.com%2Fcse%2F2018%2F02%2F15%2Fcopy-custom-vm-images-on-azure%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C6c33510f76c540c71e7d08d7df7d20c8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223600824819846sdata=M2xbiNxHbz5D0J2rBY2xwQ6alFnmuHXuU3h0KvS3C3U%3Dreserved=0

Thanks
Om

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 12:24 AM Alex Harui 
wrote:

> I don't think I should be giving out my MSDN credentials.  If you can
> install other shell capabilities or access the image via RDP, go for it.
> If there is some secure way to share the image let me know what it is.  I
> don't know much about Azure.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 4/13/20, 12:02 AM, "Yishay Weiss"  wrote:
>
> Related, as most (all?) of the instructions don’t require anything but
> a shell wouldn’t it be easier and faster to access the machine with ssh
> [1], rather than using remote desktop?
>
> [1]
> 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.microsoft.com%2Fen-us%2Fwindows-server%2Fadministration%2Fopenssh%2Fopenssh_install_firstusedata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C6c33510f76c540c71e7d08d7df7d20c8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223600824819846sdata=b6VBmPhRIejL8drAKghDRk1WImwF52ggWOPToj%2FRMhs%3Dreserved=0
>
> From: Yishay Weiss
> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:55 AM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Prioritize Release Jobs on CI
>
> Can’t you do that with remote desktop?
>
> 
> From: OmPrakash Muppirala 
> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:51:25 AM
> To: Apache Royale Development 
> Subject: Re: Prioritize Release Jobs on CI
>
> Alex,
>
> I believe this is your personal Azure subscription right?  Any chance
> I can
> get access to it so I can try to copy the image out the machine and
> redeploy it somewhere else?
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 6:18 PM OmPrakash Muppirala <
> bigosma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >> >>
> 

Re: Create new branch when creating a release (was Fwd: Royale Releases)

[Alex Harui]

Why should we have a different branch strategy than what Maven recommends?

On 4/13/20, 12:38 AM, "Carlos Rovira"  wrote:

Hi Alex,

I think there's a misunderstanding about this. Now that you passed compiler
and reach typedefs, you can see we have commits in both repositories in
develop branch with version changes. So this morning, building from sources
is making me build 0.9.8 of compiler and typedefs. But people not working
in release should be agnostic of all that process, and we should still be
able to build 0.9.7-SNAPSHOT and commit to develop.

For that reason in this thread I was proposing to create branches from the
point where RM want to release, so people working on develop can continue
its work.

Right now my way to work is to not update develop with latest commits that
increase versions in compiler and typedefs

Thanks



El mié., 8 abr. 2020 a las 19:24, Carlos Rovira ()
escribió:

> Hi Alex,
>
> ok
>
> El mié., 8 abr. 2020 a las 19:05, Alex Harui ()
> escribió:
>
>> Hi Carlos,
>>
>> When I get to step 14, a release branch will be cut.  I'm still back on
>> step 2.
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 4/8/20, 12:06 AM, "Carlos Rovira"  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> I think we didn't understand each other. In this thread I was asking
>> to
>> avoid the use of "develop" branch to do the release, instead use a 
new
>> branch (let's say we name it "release-process-0.9.7" and the RM can 
do
>> whatever he needs there. In that way, the rest of us are not 
affected.
>>
>> Right now in Royale-compiler we have 2 commits about releasing
>> build-tools,
>> that I want to avoid. Those in particular are not problematic, but
>> will be
>> the ones for compiler, typedefs and framework in case the release is
>> not
>> done quickly.
>>
>> The main problems in the way we do now:
>> - If release need to be aborted, will have lots of
>> "[maven-release-plugin]"
>> commits done and reverted.
>> - developers using the current snapshot will need to not update the
>> commits
>> with the new versions to continue building the snapshot that is used
>> in the
>> rest of repos.
>>
>> so steps 14,18 and 22 was not what I was referring to.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> El vie., 3 abr. 2020 a las 6:38, Alex Harui 
(> >)
>> escribió:
>>
>> > Steps 14, 18, and 22 in [1] dictate the use of branches.
>> >
>> > [1]
>> >
>> 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FTask-List-For-Royale-Releasesdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C0cb310f82acf4982a6a708d7df7dacc0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223603175881081sdata=CmDCiZpPK3iy6ZkSaOP3GQv2KBDIIW6VX%2FSf7az46HM%3Dreserved=0
>> >
>> > -Alex
>> >
>> > On 4/2/20, 4:53 PM, "Carlos Rovira" 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > sending this again, since it was missed in the other thread,
>> but is
>> > something not related.
>> >
>> > -- Forwarded message -
>> > De: Carlos Rovira 
>> > Date: jue., 2 abr. 2020 a las 14:32
>> > Subject: Re: Royale Releases
>> > To: Apache Royale Development 
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > one thing I want to propose before other considerations:
>> >
>> > When starting work on a release, could we work on a new branch?
>> >
>> > so all commits go to that branch and when all is done then
>> merge to
>> > develop? I think that will generate less problems to people
>> working in
>> > develop branch since releases can be wrong or test can delay
>> some days,
>> > that means people can have versions updated while other parts
>> of the
>> > code
>> > still require old versions, so that generate confusion. Doing
>> all in a
>> > new
>> > branch and then merging after all votes passes, seems to me the
>> best
>> > way to
>> > keep safe users working on develop.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> >
>> > El jue., 2 abr. 2020 a las 9:46, Carlos Rovira (<
>> > carlosrov...@apache.org>)
>> > escribió:
>> >
>> > > Hi Alex,
>> > >
>> > > first, many thanks for the detailed email. I'll comment on
>> this
>> > later as I
>> > > have more time.
>> > >
>> > > For now, to add up a recent example on what 

Re: Create new branch when creating a release (was Fwd: Royale Releases)

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi Alex,

I think there's a misunderstanding about this. Now that you passed compiler
and reach typedefs, you can see we have commits in both repositories in
develop branch with version changes. So this morning, building from sources
is making me build 0.9.8 of compiler and typedefs. But people not working
in release should be agnostic of all that process, and we should still be
able to build 0.9.7-SNAPSHOT and commit to develop.

For that reason in this thread I was proposing to create branches from the
point where RM want to release, so people working on develop can continue
its work.

Right now my way to work is to not update develop with latest commits that
increase versions in compiler and typedefs

Thanks



El mié., 8 abr. 2020 a las 19:24, Carlos Rovira ()
escribió:

> Hi Alex,
>
> ok
>
> El mié., 8 abr. 2020 a las 19:05, Alex Harui ()
> escribió:
>
>> Hi Carlos,
>>
>> When I get to step 14, a release branch will be cut.  I'm still back on
>> step 2.
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 4/8/20, 12:06 AM, "Carlos Rovira"  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> I think we didn't understand each other. In this thread I was asking
>> to
>> avoid the use of "develop" branch to do the release, instead use a new
>> branch (let's say we name it "release-process-0.9.7" and the RM can do
>> whatever he needs there. In that way, the rest of us are not affected.
>>
>> Right now in Royale-compiler we have 2 commits about releasing
>> build-tools,
>> that I want to avoid. Those in particular are not problematic, but
>> will be
>> the ones for compiler, typedefs and framework in case the release is
>> not
>> done quickly.
>>
>> The main problems in the way we do now:
>> - If release need to be aborted, will have lots of
>> "[maven-release-plugin]"
>> commits done and reverted.
>> - developers using the current snapshot will need to not update the
>> commits
>> with the new versions to continue building the snapshot that is used
>> in the
>> rest of repos.
>>
>> so steps 14,18 and 22 was not what I was referring to.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> El vie., 3 abr. 2020 a las 6:38, Alex Harui (> >)
>> escribió:
>>
>> > Steps 14, 18, and 22 in [1] dictate the use of branches.
>> >
>> > [1]
>> >
>> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FTask-List-For-Royale-Releasesdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ce3f8cd14da574441d9bd08d7db8b6a31%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637219264170137667sdata=hufpaYBkpnkEQxnqBz2isA0FVc8uCniHibUc1klo41M%3Dreserved=0
>> >
>> > -Alex
>> >
>> > On 4/2/20, 4:53 PM, "Carlos Rovira" 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > sending this again, since it was missed in the other thread,
>> but is
>> > something not related.
>> >
>> > -- Forwarded message -
>> > De: Carlos Rovira 
>> > Date: jue., 2 abr. 2020 a las 14:32
>> > Subject: Re: Royale Releases
>> > To: Apache Royale Development 
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > one thing I want to propose before other considerations:
>> >
>> > When starting work on a release, could we work on a new branch?
>> >
>> > so all commits go to that branch and when all is done then
>> merge to
>> > develop? I think that will generate less problems to people
>> working in
>> > develop branch since releases can be wrong or test can delay
>> some days,
>> > that means people can have versions updated while other parts
>> of the
>> > code
>> > still require old versions, so that generate confusion. Doing
>> all in a
>> > new
>> > branch and then merging after all votes passes, seems to me the
>> best
>> > way to
>> > keep safe users working on develop.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> >
>> > El jue., 2 abr. 2020 a las 9:46, Carlos Rovira (<
>> > carlosrov...@apache.org>)
>> > escribió:
>> >
>> > > Hi Alex,
>> > >
>> > > first, many thanks for the detailed email. I'll comment on
>> this
>> > later as I
>> > > have more time.
>> > >
>> > > For now, to add up a recent example on what Chris commented:
>> If you
>> > all
>> > > remember a week ago I was trying to use SVG Images in a blog
>> example
>> > that
>> > > was published 2 days ago. Nobody tried SVG Images before
>> building
>> > with
>> > > maven, I know that since maven was not properly configured
>> and using
>> > that
>> > > component from Maven was failing with an RTE. Probably we
>> have more
>> > things
>> > > not working the same way when build from Maven and Ant, and
>> that's
>> > > something that will need people using that code paths in test
>> > applications
>> > > (or in their own apps) to see 

Re: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 001 Succeeded

[Alex Harui]

Technically you are correct, but then you should go delete the tag.  And by 
using a different RC number we can compare what he produces against the folder 
I produced.

-Alex

On 4/13/20, 12:30 AM, "Carlos Rovira"  wrote:

Don't it's needed to increase rc number if it didn't go to a vote. I think
rc versions is just to indicate voters are voting a different version than
before that corrects the problems in the previous rc.
thanks

El dom., 12 abr. 2020 a las 20:13, Alex Harui ()
escribió:

> 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 <
> aha...@apache.org>
>
>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://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgitbox.apache.org%2Frepos%2Fasf%2Froyale-compiler.gitdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C607f9cfee3484112438508d7df7c8a66%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223598305539383sdata=0lfPWN3sn7scWPmKbzHG0rNV%2Bj%2BzeWsdbpMr24Nf73I%3Dreserved=0
>  scm:git:
> 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgitbox.apache.org%2Frepos%2Fasf%2Froyale-compiler.gitdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C607f9cfee3484112438508d7df7c8a66%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223598305539383sdata=0lfPWN3sn7scWPmKbzHG0rNV%2Bj%2BzeWsdbpMr24Nf73I%3Dreserved=0
> 
>  
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-compilerdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C607f9cfee3484112438508d7df7c8a66%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223598305539383sdata=Z%2Be4I0lhszwVKR7KKpvZ5yG8sask8xIXrsywUvc17AA%3Dreserved=0
> -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 

Re: Royale Compiler Build Tools Release Step 001 Succeeded

[Carlos Rovira]

Don't it's needed to increase rc number if it didn't go to a vote. I think
rc versions is just to indicate voters are voting a different version than
before that corrects the problems in the previous rc.
thanks

El dom., 12 abr. 2020 a las 20:13, Alex Harui ()
escribió:

> 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 <
> aha...@apache.org>
>
>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
> <
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcottage14.blogspot.com%2F=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C97615f101f73461757ad08d7df0863ae%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223099447876131=wKKdgOZG5Iz9bb75EPJzWL9XOy1tgaUSL4d5xMxDMzg%3D=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
> 

Re: Prioritize Release Jobs on CI

[Alex Harui]

I don't think I should be giving out my MSDN credentials.  If you can install 
other shell capabilities or access the image via RDP, go for it.  If there is 
some secure way to share the image let me know what it is.  I don't know much 
about Azure.

-Alex

On 4/13/20, 12:02 AM, "Yishay Weiss"  wrote:

Related, as most (all?) of the instructions don’t require anything but a 
shell wouldn’t it be easier and faster to access the machine with ssh [1], 
rather than using remote desktop?

[1] 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.microsoft.com%2Fen-us%2Fwindows-server%2Fadministration%2Fopenssh%2Fopenssh_install_firstusedata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cd6686c50bc5a47593a2c08d7df78952a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223581303726403sdata=sC9JtN12VWCQ7PgzeyWNpn8NlwO1jdDaHbdfuwVjwo0%3Dreserved=0

From: Yishay Weiss
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:55 AM
To: dev@royale.apache.org
Subject: RE: Prioritize Release Jobs on CI

Can’t you do that with remote desktop?


From: OmPrakash Muppirala 
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:51:25 AM
To: Apache Royale Development 
Subject: Re: Prioritize Release Jobs on CI

Alex,

I believe this is your personal Azure subscription right?  Any chance I can
get access to it so I can try to copy the image out the machine and
redeploy it somewhere else?

Thanks,
Om

On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 6:18 PM OmPrakash Muppirala 
wrote:

> 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>  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

RE: Prioritize Release Jobs on CI

[Yishay Weiss]

Related, as most (all?) of the instructions don’t require anything but a shell 
wouldn’t it be easier and faster to access the machine with ssh [1], rather 
than using remote desktop?

[1] 
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/administration/openssh/openssh_install_firstuse

From: Yishay Weiss
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:55 AM
To: dev@royale.apache.org
Subject: RE: Prioritize Release Jobs on CI

Can’t you do that with remote desktop?


From: OmPrakash Muppirala 
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:51:25 AM
To: Apache Royale Development 
Subject: Re: Prioritize Release Jobs on CI

Alex,

I believe this is your personal Azure subscription right?  Any chance I can
get access to it so I can try to copy the image out the machine and
redeploy it somewhere else?

Thanks,
Om

On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 6:18 PM OmPrakash Muppirala 
wrote:

> 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>  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]
>> 

RE: Prioritize Release Jobs on CI

[Yishay Weiss]

Can’t you do that with remote desktop?


From: OmPrakash Muppirala 
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:51:25 AM
To: Apache Royale Development 
Subject: Re: Prioritize Release Jobs on CI

Alex,

I believe this is your personal Azure subscription right?  Any chance I can
get access to it so I can try to copy the image out the machine and
redeploy it somewhere else?

Thanks,
Om

On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 6:18 PM OmPrakash Muppirala 
wrote:

> 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>  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
>> <
>> 

Re: Prioritize Release Jobs on CI

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

Alex,

I believe this is your personal Azure subscription right?  Any chance I can
get access to it so I can try to copy the image out the machine and
redeploy it somewhere else?

Thanks,
Om

On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 6:18 PM OmPrakash Muppirala 
wrote:

> 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>  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
>> ><
>>