Re: [DISCUSS] Coming back to collect requirements for the release process

Hi Chris, Last comment from Alex explain exactly what release process has to do additional. - Did your document explanation included that step? Reading it I feel it includes, but I would like to make sure. Thanks, Piotr On Tue, Mar 31, 2020, 6:34 AM Alex Harui wrote: > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Coming back to collect requirements for the release process

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r6412a8240c1b690603d2ddd12b578ddfc3dc8436c24b15174a18fe74%40%3Cdev.royale.apache.org%3E A "build" (running 'ant main') produces jars and swcs but does not create the same output as 'ant release' which produces tar.gz and .zip files. The release artifacts

Build failed in Jenkins: royale-compiler-integration-tests #774

See Changes: [joshtynjala] JSRoyaleDocEmitter: nocollapse is needed for constants too -- [...truncated 130.16 KB...]

Build failed in Jenkins: royale-compiler #305

See Changes: [joshtynjala] JSRoyaleDocEmitter: nocollapse is needed for constants too -- [...truncated 257.05 KB...] [echo] basedir is

Jenkins build is back to normal : royale-compiler #306

See

Jenkins build is back to normal : royale-compiler-integration-tests #775

See

Re: [DISCUSS] Coming back to collect requirements for the release process

Hi Chris, thanks. I revise and for me is totally fine :) El lun., 30 mar. 2020 a las 9:33, Harbs () escribió: > Thanks for that. The Google Doc is a great initiative! > > Harbs > > > On Mar 30, 2020, at 10:26 AM, Christofer Dutz > wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > as the discussion has gone back

[DISCUSS] Coming back to collect requirements for the release process

Hi all, as the discussion has gone back to: “the release should be as in the 13 steps”, I’d like to re-focus on the probably more important parts: I already started writing up a list of requirements and options to achieve them:

Re: [DISCUSS] Coming back to collect requirements for the release process

Thanks for that. The Google Doc is a great initiative! Harbs > On Mar 30, 2020, at 10:26 AM, Christofer Dutz > wrote: > > Hi all, > > as the discussion has gone back to: “the release should be as in the 13 > steps”, I’d like to re-focus on the probably more important parts: > > I already

Re: Releasing: Finally giving up

There were issues identified with the original process as Chris and Carlos worked through it that prevented them from completing it. Exposing any problems in that itself is helpful, but I also observed that it was a very frustrating discovery by Chris and Carlos, and we should be thankful it is

[Cancel] Release Compiler Build Tools 1.2.0

Hi, this is the cancellation thread. Thanks -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira

Re: [Vote] Release Compiler Build Tools 1.2.0

Hi, I was thinking in create another release since Chris discover this morning that jburg and build-tools has not reproducible builds activated in maven. So my impression is that we never had it before. As I said in the other email, I think Alex and Yishay should take over the release process

Re: [DISCUSS] Coming back to collect requirements for the release process

Hi Alex, But I do see that Chris took into account that part, unless I don't understand something. Thanks, Piotr pon., 30 mar 2020 o 17:22 Alex Harui napisał(a): > This looks like your original offering and does not include my > recommendations. > > I believe the document is missing the

Re: [DISCUSS] Coming back to collect requirements for the release process

Hi Alex, I think the best is that you and Yishay take over the process of release Apache Royale, to avoid the large process of emails that I think is not carrying us to get the work done. Thanks El lun., 30 mar. 2020 a las 17:22, Alex Harui () escribió: > This looks like your original

Re: [DISCUSS] Coming back to collect requirements for the release process

This looks like your original offering and does not include my recommendations. I believe the document is missing the requirement that the process of creating the Ant release artifacts must verify that the Ant artifacts are reproducible by running the Ant scripts. Again, the scenario is that

RE: [DISCUSS] Coming back to collect requirements for the release process

> Ant artifacts are reproducible by running the Ant scripts. Again, the > scenario is that if an Ant user wants to try a local change in an IDE or NPM > we want >to ensure that they can run the Ant "release" target and get the > tar.gz or .zip they need. “Again” suggests you’ve already given

Re: Control over export/rename: Finally giving up

I did a quick test, and I can confirm that a public variable will not be renamed if a public getter with the same name exists on a different class. -- Josh Tynjala Bowler Hat LLC On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 1:03 PM Josh Tynjala wrote: > Thanks for the info about