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 now known. -The timestamp issue. Alex, you already suggested this was perhaps an issue with the original process, and we are waiting to see if DST alignment is the 'fix' (if it is, it still needs a real fix, we all agree). -Chris mentioned that the compiler output is also inconsistent which makes binary reproducibles a problem in the swf part of swcs. Perhaps there are some settings for this that are not apparent to address it. In a swc, the xml content/ordering seems to match which also corresponds to classes being output in the same order in the bytecode of the swf content. But the class members inside the bytecode for each class can be in a different order. -there were also differences in the actual content between CI server and local for nodejs externs, for unknown reasons If there are indeed problems with the 'standard' against which the alternative needs to be assessed then nobody is 'on the hook' or 'off the hook'. So far it just means the starting point does not seem to be a reliable reference implementation to attempt to match in the first place. Let's focus on fixing that. On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:48 AM Carlos Rovira wrote: > Hi Alex and Yishay, > > as compiler-build-tools is released (hope others will have the time to test > and vote it soon), let me know if I finally start 0.9.7. > I'll be ok with whatever you decided. > > Thanks! :) > > Carlos > > > > El dom., 29 mar. 2020 a las 21:43, Alex Harui () > escribió: > > > I share your concern with the precedent being set here. I don't think > the > > folks behind these changes should be off the hook for getting the CI > steps > > to work again. Otherwise, any of us can go break stuff under the > rationale > > of making something else better and let someone else deal with the mess. > > > > Still, certain things have to be done. I think there is consensus that a > > release should be doable on a local machine or the CI server. So, > > hopefully Carlos is off to not just create an RC, but also document the > > steps required to do this end-to-end on a local machine by actually doing > > it. That made sense while waiting for Sunday to roll around to see if > that > > gets past the timestamp issue in the SWCs. > > > > If you have time to tweak the CI steps and see if they work to help get > > them working again, feel free to do so. I will hopefully have cycles to > > help. The credentials are in the private@ archives. I recommend > > creating a completely new set of steps by cloning the old jobs as needed. > > For example we won't need the 1a (utils) step (or probably the other > utils > > steps) anymore. A differently named step or two is needed to match what > > Carlos did for the compiler-build-tools release. > > > > If you can help them resolve the SWC timestamp issue, I hope to see the > > folks who committed to restoring these steps back to working order will > > complete that task. > > > > My 2 cents, > > -Alex > > > > On 3/29/20, 10:43 AM, "Yishay Weiss" wrote: > > > > I guess I misunderstood. I thought we were only talking about the > > compiler-build-tools release. > > > > Carlos, I of course don’t mind you doing the work. I have plenty on > my > > plate. I’m concerned with the process. Although I haven’t been following > > the threads closely enough to understand the whole technical debate, I > did > > understand that Alex and others have expressed reservations (e.g. should > > the release actually use ant to verify the ant build). Has this debate > > reached a conclusion that enjoys a consensus? If not, there should > probably > > be a vote. I don’t want to encourage a dynamic where debates are won by > > unilateral action. > > > > If everyone feels comfortable with Carlos releasing with mvn, then I > > won’t object. If there are reservations then I’d still like to give it > > another week, and see if an RM newbie like me can apply the process > > suggested by Alex. > > > > Thanks. > > > > From: Carlos Rovira<mailto:carlosrov...@apache.org> > > Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 7:34 PM > > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> > > Subject: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up > > > > Hi Yishay, > > > > I think we were all in agreement so I'll make
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
Hi Alex and Yishay, as compiler-build-tools is released (hope others will have the time to test and vote it soon), let me know if I finally start 0.9.7. I'll be ok with whatever you decided. Thanks! :) Carlos El dom., 29 mar. 2020 a las 21:43, Alex Harui () escribió: > I share your concern with the precedent being set here. I don't think the > folks behind these changes should be off the hook for getting the CI steps > to work again. Otherwise, any of us can go break stuff under the rationale > of making something else better and let someone else deal with the mess. > > Still, certain things have to be done. I think there is consensus that a > release should be doable on a local machine or the CI server. So, > hopefully Carlos is off to not just create an RC, but also document the > steps required to do this end-to-end on a local machine by actually doing > it. That made sense while waiting for Sunday to roll around to see if that > gets past the timestamp issue in the SWCs. > > If you have time to tweak the CI steps and see if they work to help get > them working again, feel free to do so. I will hopefully have cycles to > help. The credentials are in the private@ archives. I recommend > creating a completely new set of steps by cloning the old jobs as needed. > For example we won't need the 1a (utils) step (or probably the other utils > steps) anymore. A differently named step or two is needed to match what > Carlos did for the compiler-build-tools release. > > If you can help them resolve the SWC timestamp issue, I hope to see the > folks who committed to restoring these steps back to working order will > complete that task. > > My 2 cents, > -Alex > > On 3/29/20, 10:43 AM, "Yishay Weiss" wrote: > > I guess I misunderstood. I thought we were only talking about the > compiler-build-tools release. > > Carlos, I of course don’t mind you doing the work. I have plenty on my > plate. I’m concerned with the process. Although I haven’t been following > the threads closely enough to understand the whole technical debate, I did > understand that Alex and others have expressed reservations (e.g. should > the release actually use ant to verify the ant build). Has this debate > reached a conclusion that enjoys a consensus? If not, there should probably > be a vote. I don’t want to encourage a dynamic where debates are won by > unilateral action. > > If everyone feels comfortable with Carlos releasing with mvn, then I > won’t object. If there are reservations then I’d still like to give it > another week, and see if an RM newbie like me can apply the process > suggested by Alex. > > Thanks. > > From: Carlos Rovira<mailto:carlosrov...@apache.org> > Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 7:34 PM > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up > > Hi Yishay, > > I think we were all in agreement so I'll make the release. Right now > we're > voting the compiler-build-tools 1.2.0 release > As soon as this is approved, I'll continue withe 0.9.7 release. > > compiler build tools 1.2.0 is done to release some small changes for > reproducible builds and check the optional path about to release > compiler > build tools or jburg versions in the future (that should be very rare). > > Thanks > > > El dom., 29 mar. 2020 a las 15:59, Yishay Weiss (< > yishayj...@hotmail.com>) > escribió: > > > Ok, I’m ready. What’s next? Do I need to cancel an RC? How do I > login to > > Jenkins? Where do I start? > > > > From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com> > > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 8:50 PM > > To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>; Yishay > > Weiss<mailto:yishayj...@hotmail.com> > > Subject: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up > > > > @Yishay Weiss > > > > Let's wait until the set of Maven steps are available from Chris and > > Carlos. Then I will try to find some cycles to help you. Because > of where > > I live, where the schools are closed, and my kids schedule, I have > good > > weeks and bad weeks for having time for work, so it will be best to > wait to > > try a release until we have the steps and it is one of my good weeks > (next > > good week starts this Friday at 5pm my time). > > > > Thanks, > > -Alex > > > > On 3/26/20, 5:13 AM, "Yishay Weiss" wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > I too, feel very uncomfortable participati
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
Hi Yishay, I'm in the same page. I didn't want to take over without Alex ok (that he gives in this thread), as he said that Chris and I go ahead, I didn't want to do nothing without you letting me do it, since you expressed that you want to take over. As you said, ok to left it to me, I said ok. All of this taking into consideration that others like Om, Josh, Gregalready encourage us to do so. But although they encouraged me, I didn't want to do without ALL people ok with me doing it. In the other hand, the current vote to release build-tools is needed to release 0.9.7 of the whole project. In resume, I don't want to take over if people are not ok with me doing it. But I started the build-tools release since I though we have all in the same page. El dom., 29 mar. 2020 a las 19:43, Yishay Weiss () escribió: > I guess I misunderstood. I thought we were only talking about the > compiler-build-tools release. > > Carlos, I of course don’t mind you doing the work. I have plenty on my > plate. I’m concerned with the process. Although I haven’t been following > the threads closely enough to understand the whole technical debate, I did > understand that Alex and others have expressed reservations (e.g. should > the release actually use ant to verify the ant build). Has this debate > reached a conclusion that enjoys a consensus? If not, there should probably > be a vote. I don’t want to encourage a dynamic where debates are won by > unilateral action. > > If everyone feels comfortable with Carlos releasing with mvn, then I won’t > object. If there are reservations then I’d still like to give it another > week, and see if an RM newbie like me can apply the process suggested by > Alex. > > Thanks. > > From: Carlos Rovira<mailto:carlosrov...@apache.org> > Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 7:34 PM > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up > > Hi Yishay, > > I think we were all in agreement so I'll make the release. Right now we're > voting the compiler-build-tools 1.2.0 release > As soon as this is approved, I'll continue withe 0.9.7 release. > > compiler build tools 1.2.0 is done to release some small changes for > reproducible builds and check the optional path about to release compiler > build tools or jburg versions in the future (that should be very rare). > > Thanks > > > El dom., 29 mar. 2020 a las 15:59, Yishay Weiss () > escribió: > > > Ok, I’m ready. What’s next? Do I need to cancel an RC? How do I login to > > Jenkins? Where do I start? > > > > From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com> > > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 8:50 PM > > To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>; Yishay > > Weiss<mailto:yishayj...@hotmail.com> > > Subject: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up > > > > @Yishay Weiss > > > > Let's wait until the set of Maven steps are available from Chris and > > Carlos. Then I will try to find some cycles to help you. Because of > where > > I live, where the schools are closed, and my kids schedule, I have good > > weeks and bad weeks for having time for work, so it will be best to wait > to > > try a release until we have the steps and it is one of my good weeks > (next > > good week starts this Friday at 5pm my time). > > > > Thanks, > > -Alex > > > > On 3/26/20, 5:13 AM, "Yishay Weiss" wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > I too, feel very uncomfortable participating in these threads. While > > grateful to Carlos and Chris for their work I’m very annoyed with the > tone > > of ultimatums and doom and gloom. Alex has put in a lot of work into this > > and I trust his concerns are technical, rather than protecting his ego as > > has been suggested. We need to get this discussion back on technical > tracks. > > > > Since Chris has given up, and it looks like Carlos has as well, I > > volunteer to start the release process from scratch next Sunday, which is > > after Israel has switched to day light saving. I will try to do the > process > > incrementally and in parallel to my other tasks. If by the end of the > week > > it turns out the process is too cumbersome and cannot realistically be > made > > to work smoothly I will be in favor of changing the requirements to > enable > > Chris’s mvn setup to be the main release tool. > > > > Thanks, > > Yishay > > > > From: Piotr Zarzycki<mailto:piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 1:27 PM > > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> &g
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
I share your concern with the precedent being set here. I don't think the folks behind these changes should be off the hook for getting the CI steps to work again. Otherwise, any of us can go break stuff under the rationale of making something else better and let someone else deal with the mess. Still, certain things have to be done. I think there is consensus that a release should be doable on a local machine or the CI server. So, hopefully Carlos is off to not just create an RC, but also document the steps required to do this end-to-end on a local machine by actually doing it. That made sense while waiting for Sunday to roll around to see if that gets past the timestamp issue in the SWCs. If you have time to tweak the CI steps and see if they work to help get them working again, feel free to do so. I will hopefully have cycles to help. The credentials are in the private@ archives. I recommend creating a completely new set of steps by cloning the old jobs as needed. For example we won't need the 1a (utils) step (or probably the other utils steps) anymore. A differently named step or two is needed to match what Carlos did for the compiler-build-tools release. If you can help them resolve the SWC timestamp issue, I hope to see the folks who committed to restoring these steps back to working order will complete that task. My 2 cents, -Alex On 3/29/20, 10:43 AM, "Yishay Weiss" wrote: I guess I misunderstood. I thought we were only talking about the compiler-build-tools release. Carlos, I of course don’t mind you doing the work. I have plenty on my plate. I’m concerned with the process. Although I haven’t been following the threads closely enough to understand the whole technical debate, I did understand that Alex and others have expressed reservations (e.g. should the release actually use ant to verify the ant build). Has this debate reached a conclusion that enjoys a consensus? If not, there should probably be a vote. I don’t want to encourage a dynamic where debates are won by unilateral action. If everyone feels comfortable with Carlos releasing with mvn, then I won’t object. If there are reservations then I’d still like to give it another week, and see if an RM newbie like me can apply the process suggested by Alex. Thanks. From: Carlos Rovira<mailto:carlosrov...@apache.org> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 7:34 PM To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> Subject: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up Hi Yishay, I think we were all in agreement so I'll make the release. Right now we're voting the compiler-build-tools 1.2.0 release As soon as this is approved, I'll continue withe 0.9.7 release. compiler build tools 1.2.0 is done to release some small changes for reproducible builds and check the optional path about to release compiler build tools or jburg versions in the future (that should be very rare). Thanks El dom., 29 mar. 2020 a las 15:59, Yishay Weiss () escribió: > Ok, I’m ready. What’s next? Do I need to cancel an RC? How do I login to > Jenkins? Where do I start? > > From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 8:50 PM > To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>; Yishay > Weiss<mailto:yishayj...@hotmail.com> > Subject: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up > > @Yishay Weiss > > Let's wait until the set of Maven steps are available from Chris and > Carlos. Then I will try to find some cycles to help you. Because of where > I live, where the schools are closed, and my kids schedule, I have good > weeks and bad weeks for having time for work, so it will be best to wait to > try a release until we have the steps and it is one of my good weeks (next > good week starts this Friday at 5pm my time). > > Thanks, > -Alex > > On 3/26/20, 5:13 AM, "Yishay Weiss" wrote: > > Hi All, > > I too, feel very uncomfortable participating in these threads. While > grateful to Carlos and Chris for their work I’m very annoyed with the tone > of ultimatums and doom and gloom. Alex has put in a lot of work into this > and I trust his concerns are technical, rather than protecting his ego as > has been suggested. We need to get this discussion back on technical tracks. > > Since Chris has given up, and it looks like Carlos has as well, I > volunteer to start the release process from scratch next Sunday, which is > after Israel has switched to day light saving. I will try to do the process > incrementally and in parallel to my other tasks. If by the end of the week > it turns out the proces
RE: Releasing: Finally giving up
I guess I misunderstood. I thought we were only talking about the compiler-build-tools release. Carlos, I of course don’t mind you doing the work. I have plenty on my plate. I’m concerned with the process. Although I haven’t been following the threads closely enough to understand the whole technical debate, I did understand that Alex and others have expressed reservations (e.g. should the release actually use ant to verify the ant build). Has this debate reached a conclusion that enjoys a consensus? If not, there should probably be a vote. I don’t want to encourage a dynamic where debates are won by unilateral action. If everyone feels comfortable with Carlos releasing with mvn, then I won’t object. If there are reservations then I’d still like to give it another week, and see if an RM newbie like me can apply the process suggested by Alex. Thanks. From: Carlos Rovira<mailto:carlosrov...@apache.org> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 7:34 PM To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> Subject: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up Hi Yishay, I think we were all in agreement so I'll make the release. Right now we're voting the compiler-build-tools 1.2.0 release As soon as this is approved, I'll continue withe 0.9.7 release. compiler build tools 1.2.0 is done to release some small changes for reproducible builds and check the optional path about to release compiler build tools or jburg versions in the future (that should be very rare). Thanks El dom., 29 mar. 2020 a las 15:59, Yishay Weiss () escribió: > Ok, I’m ready. What’s next? Do I need to cancel an RC? How do I login to > Jenkins? Where do I start? > > From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 8:50 PM > To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>; Yishay > Weiss<mailto:yishayj...@hotmail.com> > Subject: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up > > @Yishay Weiss > > Let's wait until the set of Maven steps are available from Chris and > Carlos. Then I will try to find some cycles to help you. Because of where > I live, where the schools are closed, and my kids schedule, I have good > weeks and bad weeks for having time for work, so it will be best to wait to > try a release until we have the steps and it is one of my good weeks (next > good week starts this Friday at 5pm my time). > > Thanks, > -Alex > > On 3/26/20, 5:13 AM, "Yishay Weiss" wrote: > > Hi All, > > I too, feel very uncomfortable participating in these threads. While > grateful to Carlos and Chris for their work I’m very annoyed with the tone > of ultimatums and doom and gloom. Alex has put in a lot of work into this > and I trust his concerns are technical, rather than protecting his ego as > has been suggested. We need to get this discussion back on technical tracks. > > Since Chris has given up, and it looks like Carlos has as well, I > volunteer to start the release process from scratch next Sunday, which is > after Israel has switched to day light saving. I will try to do the process > incrementally and in parallel to my other tasks. If by the end of the week > it turns out the process is too cumbersome and cannot realistically be made > to work smoothly I will be in favor of changing the requirements to enable > Chris’s mvn setup to be the main release tool. > > Thanks, > Yishay > > From: Piotr Zarzycki<mailto:piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 1:27 PM > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up > > Hi All, > > I'm member of Apache Foundation for quite some time now. I think I > have wrote maybe 2-3 emails during that time on members mailing list. - > Why? - well I'm a person which doesn't like never ending stories, stories > which are not end up with consensus nor action and I'm sorry but this is > how it looks like in most cases there. Here we are in Apache Royale project > where this thread ended up exactly the same - never ending story. - As PMC > of this project I would like to say enough! :) > > I had hope that when Carlos and Chris try CI steps and in the process > they may have some issues, but they will end up in the same place as I > ended up where I was able to prepare RC1 in about 2h without the problem. > It turns out that they end up in the place where I have started, in the > place where I have spend 5-6 days of work to finally reach stable point. > They ended up frustrated in the same way as I was! > > I really don't care now what kind of issue they have now, whether it's > fixable or not - I just have enough of those never ending discussions where > there is absolutely no results. > > I met Chris in US i
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
Hi Yishay, I think we were all in agreement so I'll make the release. Right now we're voting the compiler-build-tools 1.2.0 release As soon as this is approved, I'll continue withe 0.9.7 release. compiler build tools 1.2.0 is done to release some small changes for reproducible builds and check the optional path about to release compiler build tools or jburg versions in the future (that should be very rare). Thanks El dom., 29 mar. 2020 a las 15:59, Yishay Weiss () escribió: > Ok, I’m ready. What’s next? Do I need to cancel an RC? How do I login to > Jenkins? Where do I start? > > From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 8:50 PM > To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>; Yishay > Weiss<mailto:yishayj...@hotmail.com> > Subject: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up > > @Yishay Weiss > > Let's wait until the set of Maven steps are available from Chris and > Carlos. Then I will try to find some cycles to help you. Because of where > I live, where the schools are closed, and my kids schedule, I have good > weeks and bad weeks for having time for work, so it will be best to wait to > try a release until we have the steps and it is one of my good weeks (next > good week starts this Friday at 5pm my time). > > Thanks, > -Alex > > On 3/26/20, 5:13 AM, "Yishay Weiss" wrote: > > Hi All, > > I too, feel very uncomfortable participating in these threads. While > grateful to Carlos and Chris for their work I’m very annoyed with the tone > of ultimatums and doom and gloom. Alex has put in a lot of work into this > and I trust his concerns are technical, rather than protecting his ego as > has been suggested. We need to get this discussion back on technical tracks. > > Since Chris has given up, and it looks like Carlos has as well, I > volunteer to start the release process from scratch next Sunday, which is > after Israel has switched to day light saving. I will try to do the process > incrementally and in parallel to my other tasks. If by the end of the week > it turns out the process is too cumbersome and cannot realistically be made > to work smoothly I will be in favor of changing the requirements to enable > Chris’s mvn setup to be the main release tool. > > Thanks, > Yishay > > From: Piotr Zarzycki<mailto:piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 1:27 PM > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up > > Hi All, > > I'm member of Apache Foundation for quite some time now. I think I > have wrote maybe 2-3 emails during that time on members mailing list. - > Why? - well I'm a person which doesn't like never ending stories, stories > which are not end up with consensus nor action and I'm sorry but this is > how it looks like in most cases there. Here we are in Apache Royale project > where this thread ended up exactly the same - never ending story. - As PMC > of this project I would like to say enough! :) > > I had hope that when Carlos and Chris try CI steps and in the process > they may have some issues, but they will end up in the same place as I > ended up where I was able to prepare RC1 in about 2h without the problem. > It turns out that they end up in the place where I have started, in the > place where I have spend 5-6 days of work to finally reach stable point. > They ended up frustrated in the same way as I was! > > I really don't care now what kind of issue they have now, whether it's > fixable or not - I just have enough of those never ending discussions where > there is absolutely no results. > > I met Chris in US in Miami and I have spend with him best time ever, > he is really great developer - if he is saying that he will have release > process in 3-4 steps on my machine - I'm +1 make it so. Not tomorrow, not > in a week - start today! > > Please start whole work on that and make it happen. I will be the > first who try the process and maybe with Chris's help we will solve also > issue with uploading artifacts to staging area which we had. > > Good Luck, > Piotr > > czw., 26 mar 2020 o 12:02 cont...@cristallium.com>> napisał(a): > > Hi Guys, > > I'm a lover of Flex dev guy since more than 10 years, been members of > Flex group on Montpellier (France) at golden age of Flex and go at all > conferences when Michaël Chaize came to Montpellier (and using Flex every > day). > > First of all I want to thank every one of you for your hard work, and > congratulate you for the actual Apache Royale capabilities. > With the last features (especialy datagrid), today your g
RE: Releasing: Finally giving up
Ok, I’m ready. What’s next? Do I need to cancel an RC? How do I login to Jenkins? Where do I start? From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 8:50 PM To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>; Yishay Weiss<mailto:yishayj...@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up @Yishay Weiss Let's wait until the set of Maven steps are available from Chris and Carlos. Then I will try to find some cycles to help you. Because of where I live, where the schools are closed, and my kids schedule, I have good weeks and bad weeks for having time for work, so it will be best to wait to try a release until we have the steps and it is one of my good weeks (next good week starts this Friday at 5pm my time). Thanks, -Alex On 3/26/20, 5:13 AM, "Yishay Weiss" wrote: Hi All, I too, feel very uncomfortable participating in these threads. While grateful to Carlos and Chris for their work I’m very annoyed with the tone of ultimatums and doom and gloom. Alex has put in a lot of work into this and I trust his concerns are technical, rather than protecting his ego as has been suggested. We need to get this discussion back on technical tracks. Since Chris has given up, and it looks like Carlos has as well, I volunteer to start the release process from scratch next Sunday, which is after Israel has switched to day light saving. I will try to do the process incrementally and in parallel to my other tasks. If by the end of the week it turns out the process is too cumbersome and cannot realistically be made to work smoothly I will be in favor of changing the requirements to enable Chris’s mvn setup to be the main release tool. Thanks, Yishay From: Piotr Zarzycki<mailto:piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 1:27 PM To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> Subject: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up Hi All, I'm member of Apache Foundation for quite some time now. I think I have wrote maybe 2-3 emails during that time on members mailing list. - Why? - well I'm a person which doesn't like never ending stories, stories which are not end up with consensus nor action and I'm sorry but this is how it looks like in most cases there. Here we are in Apache Royale project where this thread ended up exactly the same - never ending story. - As PMC of this project I would like to say enough! :) I had hope that when Carlos and Chris try CI steps and in the process they may have some issues, but they will end up in the same place as I ended up where I was able to prepare RC1 in about 2h without the problem. It turns out that they end up in the place where I have started, in the place where I have spend 5-6 days of work to finally reach stable point. They ended up frustrated in the same way as I was! I really don't care now what kind of issue they have now, whether it's fixable or not - I just have enough of those never ending discussions where there is absolutely no results. I met Chris in US in Miami and I have spend with him best time ever, he is really great developer - if he is saying that he will have release process in 3-4 steps on my machine - I'm +1 make it so. Not tomorrow, not in a week - start today! Please start whole work on that and make it happen. I will be the first who try the process and maybe with Chris's help we will solve also issue with uploading artifacts to staging area which we had. Good Luck, Piotr czw., 26 mar 2020 o 12:02 mailto:cont...@cristallium.com>> napisał(a): Hi Guys, I'm a lover of Flex dev guy since more than 10 years, been members of Flex group on Montpellier (France) at golden age of Flex and go at all conferences when Michaël Chaize came to Montpellier (and using Flex every day). First of all I want to thank every one of you for your hard work, and congratulate you for the actual Apache Royale capabilities. With the last features (especialy datagrid), today your great work make possible to use Apache Royale in business application. Of course, there are bugs, but when reported, it's quickly fix, this is great. Now, this is a huge opportunity but also risk for all guys like me to adop Apache Royale for futur projects or use it instead of using Air when it's possible. Personnaly, I first use it on my own Webs applications and perhaps for my customers on little applications for the begin. My big enormous worry is to use it and be alone in front of a SDK bug. Seeing new release every 1 or 2 months should certainly reassure me. For now I see SDK 0.9.7 since a lot of time and this make me affraid and I don't understand why there is no 0.9.8. I'm speaking as an Apache Royale SDK user : I'm very sad to read these debates on the subject of tools to use for making release. I don't care about tools nedeed or not
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
ok Yishay, thanks! El vie., 27 mar. 2020 a las 9:57, Yishay Weiss () escribió: > No objections from me. > > > From: Carlos Rovira > Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 11:47:24 AM > To: Apache Royale Development > Subject: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up > > Hi Alex > > thanks. I want to ask first Yishay since he took over. If he doesn't object > anything we can do it. > > > El jue., 26 mar. 2020 a las 19:50, Alex Harui () > escribió: > > > @Yishay Weiss > > > > Let's wait until the set of Maven steps are available from Chris and > > Carlos. Then I will try to find some cycles to help you. Because of > where > > I live, where the schools are closed, and my kids schedule, I have good > > weeks and bad weeks for having time for work, so it will be best to wait > to > > try a release until we have the steps and it is one of my good weeks > (next > > good week starts this Friday at 5pm my time). > > > > Thanks, > > -Alex > > > > On 3/26/20, 5:13 AM, "Yishay Weiss" wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > I too, feel very uncomfortable participating in these threads. While > > grateful to Carlos and Chris for their work I’m very annoyed with the > tone > > of ultimatums and doom and gloom. Alex has put in a lot of work into this > > and I trust his concerns are technical, rather than protecting his ego as > > has been suggested. We need to get this discussion back on technical > tracks. > > > > Since Chris has given up, and it looks like Carlos has as well, I > > volunteer to start the release process from scratch next Sunday, which is > > after Israel has switched to day light saving. I will try to do the > process > > incrementally and in parallel to my other tasks. If by the end of the > week > > it turns out the process is too cumbersome and cannot realistically be > made > > to work smoothly I will be in favor of changing the requirements to > enable > > Chris’s mvn setup to be the main release tool. > > > > Thanks, > > Yishay > > > > From: Piotr Zarzycki<mailto:piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 1:27 PM > > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> > > Subject: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up > > > > Hi All, > > > > I'm member of Apache Foundation for quite some time now. I think I > > have wrote maybe 2-3 emails during that time on members mailing list. - > > Why? - well I'm a person which doesn't like never ending stories, stories > > which are not end up with consensus nor action and I'm sorry but this is > > how it looks like in most cases there. Here we are in Apache Royale > project > > where this thread ended up exactly the same - never ending story. - As > PMC > > of this project I would like to say enough! :) > > > > I had hope that when Carlos and Chris try CI steps and in the process > > they may have some issues, but they will end up in the same place as I > > ended up where I was able to prepare RC1 in about 2h without the problem. > > It turns out that they end up in the place where I have started, in the > > place where I have spend 5-6 days of work to finally reach stable point. > > They ended up frustrated in the same way as I was! > > > > I really don't care now what kind of issue they have now, whether > it's > > fixable or not - I just have enough of those never ending discussions > where > > there is absolutely no results. > > > > I met Chris in US in Miami and I have spend with him best time ever, > > he is really great developer - if he is saying that he will have release > > process in 3-4 steps on my machine - I'm +1 make it so. Not tomorrow, not > > in a week - start today! > > > > Please start whole work on that and make it happen. I will be the > > first who try the process and maybe with Chris's help we will solve also > > issue with uploading artifacts to staging area which we had. > > > > Good Luck, > > Piotr > > > > czw., 26 mar 2020 o 12:02 > cont...@cristallium.com>> napisał(a): > > > > Hi Guys, > > > > I'm a lover of Flex dev guy since more than 10 years, been members of > > Flex group on Montpellier (France) at golden age of Flex and go at all > > conferences when Michaël Chaize came to Montpellier (and using Flex every > > day). > > > > First of all I want to thank every one of you for your hard work, and > >
RE: Releasing: Finally giving up
No objections from me. From: Carlos Rovira Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 11:47:24 AM To: Apache Royale Development Subject: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up Hi Alex thanks. I want to ask first Yishay since he took over. If he doesn't object anything we can do it. El jue., 26 mar. 2020 a las 19:50, Alex Harui () escribió: > @Yishay Weiss > > Let's wait until the set of Maven steps are available from Chris and > Carlos. Then I will try to find some cycles to help you. Because of where > I live, where the schools are closed, and my kids schedule, I have good > weeks and bad weeks for having time for work, so it will be best to wait to > try a release until we have the steps and it is one of my good weeks (next > good week starts this Friday at 5pm my time). > > Thanks, > -Alex > > On 3/26/20, 5:13 AM, "Yishay Weiss" wrote: > > Hi All, > > I too, feel very uncomfortable participating in these threads. While > grateful to Carlos and Chris for their work I’m very annoyed with the tone > of ultimatums and doom and gloom. Alex has put in a lot of work into this > and I trust his concerns are technical, rather than protecting his ego as > has been suggested. We need to get this discussion back on technical tracks. > > Since Chris has given up, and it looks like Carlos has as well, I > volunteer to start the release process from scratch next Sunday, which is > after Israel has switched to day light saving. I will try to do the process > incrementally and in parallel to my other tasks. If by the end of the week > it turns out the process is too cumbersome and cannot realistically be made > to work smoothly I will be in favor of changing the requirements to enable > Chris’s mvn setup to be the main release tool. > > Thanks, > Yishay > > From: Piotr Zarzycki<mailto:piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 1:27 PM > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up > > Hi All, > > I'm member of Apache Foundation for quite some time now. I think I > have wrote maybe 2-3 emails during that time on members mailing list. - > Why? - well I'm a person which doesn't like never ending stories, stories > which are not end up with consensus nor action and I'm sorry but this is > how it looks like in most cases there. Here we are in Apache Royale project > where this thread ended up exactly the same - never ending story. - As PMC > of this project I would like to say enough! :) > > I had hope that when Carlos and Chris try CI steps and in the process > they may have some issues, but they will end up in the same place as I > ended up where I was able to prepare RC1 in about 2h without the problem. > It turns out that they end up in the place where I have started, in the > place where I have spend 5-6 days of work to finally reach stable point. > They ended up frustrated in the same way as I was! > > I really don't care now what kind of issue they have now, whether it's > fixable or not - I just have enough of those never ending discussions where > there is absolutely no results. > > I met Chris in US in Miami and I have spend with him best time ever, > he is really great developer - if he is saying that he will have release > process in 3-4 steps on my machine - I'm +1 make it so. Not tomorrow, not > in a week - start today! > > Please start whole work on that and make it happen. I will be the > first who try the process and maybe with Chris's help we will solve also > issue with uploading artifacts to staging area which we had. > > Good Luck, > Piotr > > czw., 26 mar 2020 o 12:02 cont...@cristallium.com>> napisał(a): > > Hi Guys, > > I'm a lover of Flex dev guy since more than 10 years, been members of > Flex group on Montpellier (France) at golden age of Flex and go at all > conferences when Michaël Chaize came to Montpellier (and using Flex every > day). > > First of all I want to thank every one of you for your hard work, and > congratulate you for the actual Apache Royale capabilities. > With the last features (especialy datagrid), today your great work > make possible to use Apache Royale in business application. Of course, > there are bugs, but when reported, it's quickly fix, this is great. > > Now, this is a huge opportunity but also risk for all guys like me to > adop Apache Royale for futur projects or use it instead of using Air when > it's possible. > Personnaly, I first use it on my own Webs applications and perhaps for > my customers on little applications for the begin. My big enormous worry is > to use i
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
Hi Alex thanks. I want to ask first Yishay since he took over. If he doesn't object anything we can do it. El jue., 26 mar. 2020 a las 19:50, Alex Harui () escribió: > @Yishay Weiss > > Let's wait until the set of Maven steps are available from Chris and > Carlos. Then I will try to find some cycles to help you. Because of where > I live, where the schools are closed, and my kids schedule, I have good > weeks and bad weeks for having time for work, so it will be best to wait to > try a release until we have the steps and it is one of my good weeks (next > good week starts this Friday at 5pm my time). > > Thanks, > -Alex > > On 3/26/20, 5:13 AM, "Yishay Weiss" wrote: > > Hi All, > > I too, feel very uncomfortable participating in these threads. While > grateful to Carlos and Chris for their work I’m very annoyed with the tone > of ultimatums and doom and gloom. Alex has put in a lot of work into this > and I trust his concerns are technical, rather than protecting his ego as > has been suggested. We need to get this discussion back on technical tracks. > > Since Chris has given up, and it looks like Carlos has as well, I > volunteer to start the release process from scratch next Sunday, which is > after Israel has switched to day light saving. I will try to do the process > incrementally and in parallel to my other tasks. If by the end of the week > it turns out the process is too cumbersome and cannot realistically be made > to work smoothly I will be in favor of changing the requirements to enable > Chris’s mvn setup to be the main release tool. > > Thanks, > Yishay > > From: Piotr Zarzycki<mailto:piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 1:27 PM > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up > > Hi All, > > I'm member of Apache Foundation for quite some time now. I think I > have wrote maybe 2-3 emails during that time on members mailing list. - > Why? - well I'm a person which doesn't like never ending stories, stories > which are not end up with consensus nor action and I'm sorry but this is > how it looks like in most cases there. Here we are in Apache Royale project > where this thread ended up exactly the same - never ending story. - As PMC > of this project I would like to say enough! :) > > I had hope that when Carlos and Chris try CI steps and in the process > they may have some issues, but they will end up in the same place as I > ended up where I was able to prepare RC1 in about 2h without the problem. > It turns out that they end up in the place where I have started, in the > place where I have spend 5-6 days of work to finally reach stable point. > They ended up frustrated in the same way as I was! > > I really don't care now what kind of issue they have now, whether it's > fixable or not - I just have enough of those never ending discussions where > there is absolutely no results. > > I met Chris in US in Miami and I have spend with him best time ever, > he is really great developer - if he is saying that he will have release > process in 3-4 steps on my machine - I'm +1 make it so. Not tomorrow, not > in a week - start today! > > Please start whole work on that and make it happen. I will be the > first who try the process and maybe with Chris's help we will solve also > issue with uploading artifacts to staging area which we had. > > Good Luck, > Piotr > > czw., 26 mar 2020 o 12:02 cont...@cristallium.com>> napisał(a): > > Hi Guys, > > I'm a lover of Flex dev guy since more than 10 years, been members of > Flex group on Montpellier (France) at golden age of Flex and go at all > conferences when Michaël Chaize came to Montpellier (and using Flex every > day). > > First of all I want to thank every one of you for your hard work, and > congratulate you for the actual Apache Royale capabilities. > With the last features (especialy datagrid), today your great work > make possible to use Apache Royale in business application. Of course, > there are bugs, but when reported, it's quickly fix, this is great. > > Now, this is a huge opportunity but also risk for all guys like me to > adop Apache Royale for futur projects or use it instead of using Air when > it's possible. > Personnaly, I first use it on my own Webs applications and perhaps for > my customers on little applications for the begin. My big enormous worry is > to use it and be alone in front of a SDK bug. > Seeing new release every 1 or 2 months should certainly reassure me. > For now I see SDK 0.9.7 since a lot of time and this make me affraid a
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
@Yishay Weiss Let's wait until the set of Maven steps are available from Chris and Carlos. Then I will try to find some cycles to help you. Because of where I live, where the schools are closed, and my kids schedule, I have good weeks and bad weeks for having time for work, so it will be best to wait to try a release until we have the steps and it is one of my good weeks (next good week starts this Friday at 5pm my time). Thanks, -Alex On 3/26/20, 5:13 AM, "Yishay Weiss" wrote: Hi All, I too, feel very uncomfortable participating in these threads. While grateful to Carlos and Chris for their work I’m very annoyed with the tone of ultimatums and doom and gloom. Alex has put in a lot of work into this and I trust his concerns are technical, rather than protecting his ego as has been suggested. We need to get this discussion back on technical tracks. Since Chris has given up, and it looks like Carlos has as well, I volunteer to start the release process from scratch next Sunday, which is after Israel has switched to day light saving. I will try to do the process incrementally and in parallel to my other tasks. If by the end of the week it turns out the process is too cumbersome and cannot realistically be made to work smoothly I will be in favor of changing the requirements to enable Chris’s mvn setup to be the main release tool. Thanks, Yishay From: Piotr Zarzycki<mailto:piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 1:27 PM To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> Subject: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up Hi All, I'm member of Apache Foundation for quite some time now. I think I have wrote maybe 2-3 emails during that time on members mailing list. - Why? - well I'm a person which doesn't like never ending stories, stories which are not end up with consensus nor action and I'm sorry but this is how it looks like in most cases there. Here we are in Apache Royale project where this thread ended up exactly the same - never ending story. - As PMC of this project I would like to say enough! :) I had hope that when Carlos and Chris try CI steps and in the process they may have some issues, but they will end up in the same place as I ended up where I was able to prepare RC1 in about 2h without the problem. It turns out that they end up in the place where I have started, in the place where I have spend 5-6 days of work to finally reach stable point. They ended up frustrated in the same way as I was! I really don't care now what kind of issue they have now, whether it's fixable or not - I just have enough of those never ending discussions where there is absolutely no results. I met Chris in US in Miami and I have spend with him best time ever, he is really great developer - if he is saying that he will have release process in 3-4 steps on my machine - I'm +1 make it so. Not tomorrow, not in a week - start today! Please start whole work on that and make it happen. I will be the first who try the process and maybe with Chris's help we will solve also issue with uploading artifacts to staging area which we had. Good Luck, Piotr czw., 26 mar 2020 o 12:02 mailto:cont...@cristallium.com>> napisał(a): Hi Guys, I'm a lover of Flex dev guy since more than 10 years, been members of Flex group on Montpellier (France) at golden age of Flex and go at all conferences when Michaël Chaize came to Montpellier (and using Flex every day). First of all I want to thank every one of you for your hard work, and congratulate you for the actual Apache Royale capabilities. With the last features (especialy datagrid), today your great work make possible to use Apache Royale in business application. Of course, there are bugs, but when reported, it's quickly fix, this is great. Now, this is a huge opportunity but also risk for all guys like me to adop Apache Royale for futur projects or use it instead of using Air when it's possible. Personnaly, I first use it on my own Webs applications and perhaps for my customers on little applications for the begin. My big enormous worry is to use it and be alone in front of a SDK bug. Seeing new release every 1 or 2 months should certainly reassure me. For now I see SDK 0.9.7 since a lot of time and this make me affraid and I don't understand why there is no 0.9.8. I'm speaking as an Apache Royale SDK user : I'm very sad to read these debates on the subject of tools to use for making release. I don't care about tools nedeed or not to build the release SDK. I would like use Apache Royale to build RAD (Rapid Application Dev) Web applications and see more and more SDK features added, and participate to project (like today) by reporting bug by using my time on isolate the bug and make tests cases with sc
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
Chris and Carlos, please actually produce a wiki page with the list of Maven commands. I'm sorry, but don't think it will be as amazingly simple as you stated. So do it! Maybe Chris first to document the steps in a wiki page, then Carlos next to prove that Chris didn't miss anything in the documentation. Also, please make sure that the parameters used to produce the artifacts includes the plugins and options for creating a reproducible binary. Don't worry about if it actually matches anything right now. I think I've explained why that is on another thread. Like I said, the test is that the staging repo will have the same set of files as the 0.9.6 release (other than any new SWCs and with a different version number. I think there will be more commands than just release:prepare and release:perform, calling set-property on things. It is a lot of typing for the RM, prone to typing errors, which is why it was automated in Ant scripts and CI steps. I would actually love to be wrong about this, because then I think we could reduce the set of CI steps to match as well. As I've written many times, most of the CI steps just do the minimum Maven commands to build the release artifacts using the Maven poms we had in the past. So go for it, and let us know when the final list of Maven commands is ready. Don't worry about the Ant artifacts either for now. Just get the Maven staging repo ready. The Ant steps already know how to pull the Maven source artifact from staging and build the Ant artifacts. I'm still unclear why it will ever make sense to drive that portion from Maven. I have yet to see a technical explanation of how we can validate that Ant can use the build.xml files to create the Ant artifacts without actually running Ant, but that can wait until after we get the set of Maven commands for the Maven artifacts first. Thanks, -Alex On 3/26/20, 1:26 AM, "Carlos Rovira" wrote: Hi, that's amazingly simple, so I think we should go that way without doubt. I think reached this point there's a clear sense of that we need to go that route. We tried our best to stick with the previous process and we're all loosing lots of time. Then currently seems no more people in the community was interested in this thread, event to comment a single line (here or in the other users list thread), what means that or there's no more people like us in this project or people really is not interested and just want us to release and go forward. As previously I think most of the PMCs here (Om, Josh, Greg and me for sure), probably Yishay for his concise comments are more for this. My thinking is that the right now I think only 2 PMCs are for CI Server, and other one that is uncertainly but didn't try the CI Server. I think all can live together while is not a must for the rest that don't want it the others option, so what's about if we release with the super-simple steps Chris proposal, and others wanting to use CI do that when is their RM turn ? (of course maintaining it and making it work for his release without requiring nothing for the rest that doesn't want it). Release as other projects do is recommended but not required, the same as the actual CI server (but this one should be less recommended since is a royale-only practice not seen in any other place). What's the important thing is to release, do it, and do it easily and often. Thanks El jue., 26 mar. 2020 a las 8:24, Christofer Dutz (< christofer.d...@c-ware.de>) escribió: > Ok, > > I'll write this a last time as I do feel like we're going in circles and > will from now on not participate in any discussion involving releasing on a > CI server. > > A correct Maven release would use (There will be some additional profiles > to activate to include all modules) > > 1) the "mvn release:branch" call in order to create the branch and bump > the version of develop to the next version. > 2) the "mvn release:prepare" to change the pom to the release version, set > the timestamp in the pom (for reproducible builds) build ... if all tests > are good, commit the changes, tag this commit, update the poms to the next > development version, commit those changes and push everything. > 3) the "mvn release:perform" which will checkout the tagged version build > everything with the "apache-release" profile turned on (Which causes the > source.jars, Javadoc.jars, hashes and gpg singatures to be created as well > as the assembly) This also deploys the built artifacts to Nexus. > > Most of that you are already doing on the CI server however you're not > letting it do all automatically (For lack of credentials) > > But ... if you would just be doing those steps on the RM machine. > > Chris > >
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
Hi Piotr, I think is good to wait for Yishay try. I prefer he test the current process and then comes back and report his founds. I'll be more happy if all people here see the same problem we're having instead of just believing in something that if is not tried is a black box for the rest. For me was a black box until I was in front of it. I now have a clear knowledge of it. Others need to see if arrives to the same shore or not. We need to solve this problem in a way that all people here choose an option that see is the right one, and I think the only way that we all know that is experiencing it. So for me +1 to Yishay trying it and reporting, and thanks for taking that step forward :) Hoping to get soon your report of your experience. Carlos El jue., 26 mar. 2020 a las 14:47, Piotr Zarzycki (< piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>) escribió: > Chris, > > I would love to test stuff, once it's really do for me everything. If you > are saying that I will take source-bundle (not sure what do you mean by > that - take source bundle from where) and do in console "ant -f build.xml" > - That's not what expect. I expect that I will make everything being in one > console windows. > > 1) Prepare RC1 with signed stuff - should I sign stuff if it's RC1 by my > Apache gpg keys ? > 2) Produce Maven distribution IDE so I could test them > 3) Produce Ant IDE artifacts to test them > > Provide me an instruction which I do that and I will start going trough it > in upcoming week. Instruction should also contains whether I need to create > branches, tags etc. That instruction should contains everything what RM > should do, what should click, type checkout etc. - Treat me that I would > just join the project. I was an RM, some steps would be an obvious for me, > but for Yishay or any other person won't be at all - whether he try old way > of doing stuff or new. > > Thanks, > Piotr > > > > czw., 26 mar 2020 o 14:04 Christofer Dutz > napisał(a): > > > Hi Piotr, > > > > I would assume that ideally you would simply do a normal Maven release. > > > > This will produce all the artifacts needed for an official Apache release > > and > > also create and deploy the convenience binaries for Maven. > > > > I would then suggest to use the source-bundle and run the Ant build > inside > > it to produce the Ant convenience binary (SDK) from that. > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > Am 26.03.20, 13:43 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" >: > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > My end expectation is that I will be able to prepare RC1 by Maven, > but > > also > > take care of ANT build - I'm not sure maybe it would be enough if ANT > > build > > will be launched by maven and produce IDE ready SDK - which could be > > tested > > in that way. > > > > Thanks, > > Piotr > > > > czw., 26 mar 2020 o 13:38 Christofer Dutz > > > napisał(a): > > > > > Hi Piotr, > > > > > > generally the build is currently already in a state we should be > > able to > > > release Royale with Maven. > > > I intentionally put all the bells and whistles in a profile that > you > > need > > > to activate “royale-release”. > > > If you don’t do that, it should be a normal Maven release. > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > Von: Piotr Zarzycki > > > Antworten an: "dev@royale.apache.org" > > > Datum: Donnerstag, 26. März 2020 um 12:27 > > > An: Apache Royale Development > > > Betreff: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > I'm member of Apache Foundation for quite some time now. I think I > > have > > > wrote maybe 2-3 emails during that time on members mailing list. - > > Why? - > > > well I'm a person which doesn't like never ending stories, stories > > which > > > are not end up with consensus nor action and I'm sorry but this is > > how it > > > looks like in most cases there. Here we are in Apache Royale > project > > where > > > this thread ended up exactly the same - never ending story. - As > PMC > > of > > > this project I would like to say enough! :) > > > > > > I had hope that when Carlos and Chris try CI steps and in the > > process they > > > may have some issues, but they will end up in the same place as I > > ended up > > > where I was able to prepare RC1 in abo
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
Chris, I would love to test stuff, once it's really do for me everything. If you are saying that I will take source-bundle (not sure what do you mean by that - take source bundle from where) and do in console "ant -f build.xml" - That's not what expect. I expect that I will make everything being in one console windows. 1) Prepare RC1 with signed stuff - should I sign stuff if it's RC1 by my Apache gpg keys ? 2) Produce Maven distribution IDE so I could test them 3) Produce Ant IDE artifacts to test them Provide me an instruction which I do that and I will start going trough it in upcoming week. Instruction should also contains whether I need to create branches, tags etc. That instruction should contains everything what RM should do, what should click, type checkout etc. - Treat me that I would just join the project. I was an RM, some steps would be an obvious for me, but for Yishay or any other person won't be at all - whether he try old way of doing stuff or new. Thanks, Piotr czw., 26 mar 2020 o 14:04 Christofer Dutz napisał(a): > Hi Piotr, > > I would assume that ideally you would simply do a normal Maven release. > > This will produce all the artifacts needed for an official Apache release > and > also create and deploy the convenience binaries for Maven. > > I would then suggest to use the source-bundle and run the Ant build inside > it to produce the Ant convenience binary (SDK) from that. > > Chris > > > > Am 26.03.20, 13:43 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" : > > Hi Chris, > > My end expectation is that I will be able to prepare RC1 by Maven, but > also > take care of ANT build - I'm not sure maybe it would be enough if ANT > build > will be launched by maven and produce IDE ready SDK - which could be > tested > in that way. > > Thanks, > Piotr > > czw., 26 mar 2020 o 13:38 Christofer Dutz > napisał(a): > > > Hi Piotr, > > > > generally the build is currently already in a state we should be > able to > > release Royale with Maven. > > I intentionally put all the bells and whistles in a profile that you > need > > to activate “royale-release”. > > If you don’t do that, it should be a normal Maven release. > > > > Chris > > > > Von: Piotr Zarzycki > > Antworten an: "dev@royale.apache.org" > > Datum: Donnerstag, 26. März 2020 um 12:27 > > An: Apache Royale Development > > Betreff: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up > > > > Hi All, > > > > I'm member of Apache Foundation for quite some time now. I think I > have > > wrote maybe 2-3 emails during that time on members mailing list. - > Why? - > > well I'm a person which doesn't like never ending stories, stories > which > > are not end up with consensus nor action and I'm sorry but this is > how it > > looks like in most cases there. Here we are in Apache Royale project > where > > this thread ended up exactly the same - never ending story. - As PMC > of > > this project I would like to say enough! :) > > > > I had hope that when Carlos and Chris try CI steps and in the > process they > > may have some issues, but they will end up in the same place as I > ended up > > where I was able to prepare RC1 in about 2h without the problem. It > turns > > out that they end up in the place where I have started, in the place > where > > I have spend 5-6 days of work to finally reach stable point. They > ended up > > frustrated in the same way as I was! > > > > I really don't care now what kind of issue they have now, whether > it's > > fixable or not - I just have enough of those never ending > discussions where > > there is absolutely no results. > > > > I met Chris in US in Miami and I have spend with him best time ever, > he is > > really great developer - if he is saying that he will have release > process > > in 3-4 steps on my machine - I'm +1 make it so. Not tomorrow, not in > a week > > - start today! > > > > Please start whole work on that and make it happen. I will be the > first > > who try the process and maybe with Chris's help we will solve also > issue > > with uploading artifacts to staging area which we had. > > > > Good Luck, > > Piotr > > > > czw., 26 mar 2020 o 12:02 > cont...@cristallium.com>> napisał(a): > > > > Hi Guys, > > > > I'm a lover of Flex dev guy since m
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
Hi Piotr, I would assume that ideally you would simply do a normal Maven release. This will produce all the artifacts needed for an official Apache release and also create and deploy the convenience binaries for Maven. I would then suggest to use the source-bundle and run the Ant build inside it to produce the Ant convenience binary (SDK) from that. Chris Am 26.03.20, 13:43 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" : Hi Chris, My end expectation is that I will be able to prepare RC1 by Maven, but also take care of ANT build - I'm not sure maybe it would be enough if ANT build will be launched by maven and produce IDE ready SDK - which could be tested in that way. Thanks, Piotr czw., 26 mar 2020 o 13:38 Christofer Dutz napisał(a): > Hi Piotr, > > generally the build is currently already in a state we should be able to > release Royale with Maven. > I intentionally put all the bells and whistles in a profile that you need > to activate “royale-release”. > If you don’t do that, it should be a normal Maven release. > > Chris > > Von: Piotr Zarzycki > Antworten an: "dev@royale.apache.org" > Datum: Donnerstag, 26. März 2020 um 12:27 > An: Apache Royale Development > Betreff: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up > > Hi All, > > I'm member of Apache Foundation for quite some time now. I think I have > wrote maybe 2-3 emails during that time on members mailing list. - Why? - > well I'm a person which doesn't like never ending stories, stories which > are not end up with consensus nor action and I'm sorry but this is how it > looks like in most cases there. Here we are in Apache Royale project where > this thread ended up exactly the same - never ending story. - As PMC of > this project I would like to say enough! :) > > I had hope that when Carlos and Chris try CI steps and in the process they > may have some issues, but they will end up in the same place as I ended up > where I was able to prepare RC1 in about 2h without the problem. It turns > out that they end up in the place where I have started, in the place where > I have spend 5-6 days of work to finally reach stable point. They ended up > frustrated in the same way as I was! > > I really don't care now what kind of issue they have now, whether it's > fixable or not - I just have enough of those never ending discussions where > there is absolutely no results. > > I met Chris in US in Miami and I have spend with him best time ever, he is > really great developer - if he is saying that he will have release process > in 3-4 steps on my machine - I'm +1 make it so. Not tomorrow, not in a week > - start today! > > Please start whole work on that and make it happen. I will be the first > who try the process and maybe with Chris's help we will solve also issue > with uploading artifacts to staging area which we had. > > Good Luck, > Piotr > > czw., 26 mar 2020 o 12:02 cont...@cristallium.com>> napisał(a): > > Hi Guys, > > I'm a lover of Flex dev guy since more than 10 years, been members of Flex > group on Montpellier (France) at golden age of Flex and go at all > conferences when Michaël Chaize came to Montpellier (and using Flex every > day). > > First of all I want to thank every one of you for your hard work, and > congratulate you for the actual Apache Royale capabilities. > With the last features (especialy datagrid), today your great work make > possible to use Apache Royale in business application. Of course, there are > bugs, but when reported, it's quickly fix, this is great. > > Now, this is a huge opportunity but also risk for all guys like me to adop > Apache Royale for futur projects or use it instead of using Air when it's > possible. > Personnaly, I first use it on my own Webs applications and perhaps for my > customers on little applications for the begin. My big enormous worry is to > use it and be alone in front of a SDK bug. > Seeing new release every 1 or 2 months should certainly reassure me. For > now I see SDK 0.9.7 since a lot of time and this make me affraid and I > don't understand why there is no 0.9.8. > > I'm speaking as an Apache Royale SDK user : I'm very sad to read these > debates on the subject of tools to use for making release. I don't care > about tools nedeed or not to build the release SDK. > I would like use Apache Royale to build RAD (Rapid Application Dev) Web > applications and see more and
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
Hi Chris, My end expectation is that I will be able to prepare RC1 by Maven, but also take care of ANT build - I'm not sure maybe it would be enough if ANT build will be launched by maven and produce IDE ready SDK - which could be tested in that way. Thanks, Piotr czw., 26 mar 2020 o 13:38 Christofer Dutz napisał(a): > Hi Piotr, > > generally the build is currently already in a state we should be able to > release Royale with Maven. > I intentionally put all the bells and whistles in a profile that you need > to activate “royale-release”. > If you don’t do that, it should be a normal Maven release. > > Chris > > Von: Piotr Zarzycki > Antworten an: "dev@royale.apache.org" > Datum: Donnerstag, 26. März 2020 um 12:27 > An: Apache Royale Development > Betreff: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up > > Hi All, > > I'm member of Apache Foundation for quite some time now. I think I have > wrote maybe 2-3 emails during that time on members mailing list. - Why? - > well I'm a person which doesn't like never ending stories, stories which > are not end up with consensus nor action and I'm sorry but this is how it > looks like in most cases there. Here we are in Apache Royale project where > this thread ended up exactly the same - never ending story. - As PMC of > this project I would like to say enough! :) > > I had hope that when Carlos and Chris try CI steps and in the process they > may have some issues, but they will end up in the same place as I ended up > where I was able to prepare RC1 in about 2h without the problem. It turns > out that they end up in the place where I have started, in the place where > I have spend 5-6 days of work to finally reach stable point. They ended up > frustrated in the same way as I was! > > I really don't care now what kind of issue they have now, whether it's > fixable or not - I just have enough of those never ending discussions where > there is absolutely no results. > > I met Chris in US in Miami and I have spend with him best time ever, he is > really great developer - if he is saying that he will have release process > in 3-4 steps on my machine - I'm +1 make it so. Not tomorrow, not in a week > - start today! > > Please start whole work on that and make it happen. I will be the first > who try the process and maybe with Chris's help we will solve also issue > with uploading artifacts to staging area which we had. > > Good Luck, > Piotr > > czw., 26 mar 2020 o 12:02 cont...@cristallium.com>> napisał(a): > > Hi Guys, > > I'm a lover of Flex dev guy since more than 10 years, been members of Flex > group on Montpellier (France) at golden age of Flex and go at all > conferences when Michaël Chaize came to Montpellier (and using Flex every > day). > > First of all I want to thank every one of you for your hard work, and > congratulate you for the actual Apache Royale capabilities. > With the last features (especialy datagrid), today your great work make > possible to use Apache Royale in business application. Of course, there are > bugs, but when reported, it's quickly fix, this is great. > > Now, this is a huge opportunity but also risk for all guys like me to adop > Apache Royale for futur projects or use it instead of using Air when it's > possible. > Personnaly, I first use it on my own Webs applications and perhaps for my > customers on little applications for the begin. My big enormous worry is to > use it and be alone in front of a SDK bug. > Seeing new release every 1 or 2 months should certainly reassure me. For > now I see SDK 0.9.7 since a lot of time and this make me affraid and I > don't understand why there is no 0.9.8. > > I'm speaking as an Apache Royale SDK user : I'm very sad to read these > debates on the subject of tools to use for making release. I don't care > about tools nedeed or not to build the release SDK. > I would like use Apache Royale to build RAD (Rapid Application Dev) Web > applications and see more and more SDK features added, and participate to > project (like today) by reporting bug by using my time on isolate the bug > and make tests cases with screenshoots to save your time in fixing it. > > Using Reac, Bootstrap, AngularJS or other similar is a back to 80's. How > can I explain my customer that I need 3 ou 4 days to make thinks that took > me 1 day with Flex ? > The big competitive advantage of Apache Royale is not only be able to > re-use Flex apps but is also simplicity and time saving where other SDK > can't do it. (I think you already know that) > > I am convinced that all guys like me will jump using Royale when they will > know that there is a bug free SDK with fast evolution available. > (unfortunaly it's not known enough, nobody know som
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
Hi Piotr, generally the build is currently already in a state we should be able to release Royale with Maven. I intentionally put all the bells and whistles in a profile that you need to activate “royale-release”. If you don’t do that, it should be a normal Maven release. Chris Von: Piotr Zarzycki Antworten an: "dev@royale.apache.org" Datum: Donnerstag, 26. März 2020 um 12:27 An: Apache Royale Development Betreff: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up Hi All, I'm member of Apache Foundation for quite some time now. I think I have wrote maybe 2-3 emails during that time on members mailing list. - Why? - well I'm a person which doesn't like never ending stories, stories which are not end up with consensus nor action and I'm sorry but this is how it looks like in most cases there. Here we are in Apache Royale project where this thread ended up exactly the same - never ending story. - As PMC of this project I would like to say enough! :) I had hope that when Carlos and Chris try CI steps and in the process they may have some issues, but they will end up in the same place as I ended up where I was able to prepare RC1 in about 2h without the problem. It turns out that they end up in the place where I have started, in the place where I have spend 5-6 days of work to finally reach stable point. They ended up frustrated in the same way as I was! I really don't care now what kind of issue they have now, whether it's fixable or not - I just have enough of those never ending discussions where there is absolutely no results. I met Chris in US in Miami and I have spend with him best time ever, he is really great developer - if he is saying that he will have release process in 3-4 steps on my machine - I'm +1 make it so. Not tomorrow, not in a week - start today! Please start whole work on that and make it happen. I will be the first who try the process and maybe with Chris's help we will solve also issue with uploading artifacts to staging area which we had. Good Luck, Piotr czw., 26 mar 2020 o 12:02 mailto:cont...@cristallium.com>> napisał(a): Hi Guys, I'm a lover of Flex dev guy since more than 10 years, been members of Flex group on Montpellier (France) at golden age of Flex and go at all conferences when Michaël Chaize came to Montpellier (and using Flex every day). First of all I want to thank every one of you for your hard work, and congratulate you for the actual Apache Royale capabilities. With the last features (especialy datagrid), today your great work make possible to use Apache Royale in business application. Of course, there are bugs, but when reported, it's quickly fix, this is great. Now, this is a huge opportunity but also risk for all guys like me to adop Apache Royale for futur projects or use it instead of using Air when it's possible. Personnaly, I first use it on my own Webs applications and perhaps for my customers on little applications for the begin. My big enormous worry is to use it and be alone in front of a SDK bug. Seeing new release every 1 or 2 months should certainly reassure me. For now I see SDK 0.9.7 since a lot of time and this make me affraid and I don't understand why there is no 0.9.8. I'm speaking as an Apache Royale SDK user : I'm very sad to read these debates on the subject of tools to use for making release. I don't care about tools nedeed or not to build the release SDK. I would like use Apache Royale to build RAD (Rapid Application Dev) Web applications and see more and more SDK features added, and participate to project (like today) by reporting bug by using my time on isolate the bug and make tests cases with screenshoots to save your time in fixing it. Using Reac, Bootstrap, AngularJS or other similar is a back to 80's. How can I explain my customer that I need 3 ou 4 days to make thinks that took me 1 day with Flex ? The big competitive advantage of Apache Royale is not only be able to re-use Flex apps but is also simplicity and time saving where other SDK can't do it. (I think you already know that) I am convinced that all guys like me will jump using Royale when they will know that there is a bug free SDK with fast evolution available. (unfortunaly it's not known enough, nobody know someone working in newspapers ?) So please, I beg you, don't waste your time on things that are not essential and like Carlos said, go forward. From outside view, Apache Royale stay sticky to 0.9.7. You are so close of a v1.0, I hope see it very soon and other releases with bugs fix every 1, 2 or 3 months. Consider my comments as support and not criticism. Thanks again for your hard work. Long life and success to Apache Royale ! Fred Le 26.03.2020 09:26, Carlos Rovira a écrit : Hi, that's amazingly simple, so I think we should go that way without doubt. I think reached this point there's a clear sense of that we need to go that route. We tried our best to stick with the previous process and we're
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
Hi Yishay, I would say - great some time ago, but now - We will have again bunch of emails with same questions on the list which were asked and debated here, again and again. It end up in the same place with loosed energy. However I hope guys won't wait but start working in parallel on new stuff - I'm sorry but I don't believe in a an old process anymore - not after what I'm reading here. Thanks, Piotr czw., 26 mar 2020 o 13:13 Yishay Weiss napisał(a): > Hi All, > > I too, feel very uncomfortable participating in these threads. While > grateful to Carlos and Chris for their work I’m very annoyed with the tone > of ultimatums and doom and gloom. Alex has put in a lot of work into this > and I trust his concerns are technical, rather than protecting his ego as > has been suggested. We need to get this discussion back on technical tracks. > > Since Chris has given up, and it looks like Carlos has as well, I > volunteer to start the release process from scratch next Sunday, which is > after Israel has switched to day light saving. I will try to do the process > incrementally and in parallel to my other tasks. If by the end of the week > it turns out the process is too cumbersome and cannot realistically be made > to work smoothly I will be in favor of changing the requirements to enable > Chris’s mvn setup to be the main release tool. > > Thanks, > Yishay > > From: Piotr Zarzycki<mailto:piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 1:27 PM > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up > > Hi All, > > I'm member of Apache Foundation for quite some time now. I think I have > wrote maybe 2-3 emails during that time on members mailing list. - Why? - > well I'm a person which doesn't like never ending stories, stories which > are not end up with consensus nor action and I'm sorry but this is how it > looks like in most cases there. Here we are in Apache Royale project where > this thread ended up exactly the same - never ending story. - As PMC of > this project I would like to say enough! :) > > I had hope that when Carlos and Chris try CI steps and in the process they > may have some issues, but they will end up in the same place as I ended up > where I was able to prepare RC1 in about 2h without the problem. It turns > out that they end up in the place where I have started, in the place where > I have spend 5-6 days of work to finally reach stable point. They ended up > frustrated in the same way as I was! > > I really don't care now what kind of issue they have now, whether it's > fixable or not - I just have enough of those never ending discussions where > there is absolutely no results. > > I met Chris in US in Miami and I have spend with him best time ever, he is > really great developer - if he is saying that he will have release process > in 3-4 steps on my machine - I'm +1 make it so. Not tomorrow, not in a week > - start today! > > Please start whole work on that and make it happen. I will be the first > who try the process and maybe with Chris's help we will solve also issue > with uploading artifacts to staging area which we had. > > Good Luck, > Piotr > > czw., 26 mar 2020 o 12:02 cont...@cristallium.com>> napisał(a): > > Hi Guys, > > I'm a lover of Flex dev guy since more than 10 years, been members of Flex > group on Montpellier (France) at golden age of Flex and go at all > conferences when Michaël Chaize came to Montpellier (and using Flex every > day). > > First of all I want to thank every one of you for your hard work, and > congratulate you for the actual Apache Royale capabilities. > With the last features (especialy datagrid), today your great work make > possible to use Apache Royale in business application. Of course, there are > bugs, but when reported, it's quickly fix, this is great. > > Now, this is a huge opportunity but also risk for all guys like me to adop > Apache Royale for futur projects or use it instead of using Air when it's > possible. > Personnaly, I first use it on my own Webs applications and perhaps for my > customers on little applications for the begin. My big enormous worry is to > use it and be alone in front of a SDK bug. > Seeing new release every 1 or 2 months should certainly reassure me. For > now I see SDK 0.9.7 since a lot of time and this make me affraid and I > don't understand why there is no 0.9.8. > > I'm speaking as an Apache Royale SDK user : I'm very sad to read these > debates on the subject of tools to use for making release. I don't care > about tools nedeed or not to build the release SDK. > I would like use Apache Royale to build RAD (Rapid Application Dev) Web > applications and see more and
RE: Releasing: Finally giving up
Hi All, I too, feel very uncomfortable participating in these threads. While grateful to Carlos and Chris for their work I’m very annoyed with the tone of ultimatums and doom and gloom. Alex has put in a lot of work into this and I trust his concerns are technical, rather than protecting his ego as has been suggested. We need to get this discussion back on technical tracks. Since Chris has given up, and it looks like Carlos has as well, I volunteer to start the release process from scratch next Sunday, which is after Israel has switched to day light saving. I will try to do the process incrementally and in parallel to my other tasks. If by the end of the week it turns out the process is too cumbersome and cannot realistically be made to work smoothly I will be in favor of changing the requirements to enable Chris’s mvn setup to be the main release tool. Thanks, Yishay From: Piotr Zarzycki<mailto:piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 1:27 PM To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> Subject: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up Hi All, I'm member of Apache Foundation for quite some time now. I think I have wrote maybe 2-3 emails during that time on members mailing list. - Why? - well I'm a person which doesn't like never ending stories, stories which are not end up with consensus nor action and I'm sorry but this is how it looks like in most cases there. Here we are in Apache Royale project where this thread ended up exactly the same - never ending story. - As PMC of this project I would like to say enough! :) I had hope that when Carlos and Chris try CI steps and in the process they may have some issues, but they will end up in the same place as I ended up where I was able to prepare RC1 in about 2h without the problem. It turns out that they end up in the place where I have started, in the place where I have spend 5-6 days of work to finally reach stable point. They ended up frustrated in the same way as I was! I really don't care now what kind of issue they have now, whether it's fixable or not - I just have enough of those never ending discussions where there is absolutely no results. I met Chris in US in Miami and I have spend with him best time ever, he is really great developer - if he is saying that he will have release process in 3-4 steps on my machine - I'm +1 make it so. Not tomorrow, not in a week - start today! Please start whole work on that and make it happen. I will be the first who try the process and maybe with Chris's help we will solve also issue with uploading artifacts to staging area which we had. Good Luck, Piotr czw., 26 mar 2020 o 12:02 mailto:cont...@cristallium.com>> napisał(a): Hi Guys, I'm a lover of Flex dev guy since more than 10 years, been members of Flex group on Montpellier (France) at golden age of Flex and go at all conferences when Michaël Chaize came to Montpellier (and using Flex every day). First of all I want to thank every one of you for your hard work, and congratulate you for the actual Apache Royale capabilities. With the last features (especialy datagrid), today your great work make possible to use Apache Royale in business application. Of course, there are bugs, but when reported, it's quickly fix, this is great. Now, this is a huge opportunity but also risk for all guys like me to adop Apache Royale for futur projects or use it instead of using Air when it's possible. Personnaly, I first use it on my own Webs applications and perhaps for my customers on little applications for the begin. My big enormous worry is to use it and be alone in front of a SDK bug. Seeing new release every 1 or 2 months should certainly reassure me. For now I see SDK 0.9.7 since a lot of time and this make me affraid and I don't understand why there is no 0.9.8. I'm speaking as an Apache Royale SDK user : I'm very sad to read these debates on the subject of tools to use for making release. I don't care about tools nedeed or not to build the release SDK. I would like use Apache Royale to build RAD (Rapid Application Dev) Web applications and see more and more SDK features added, and participate to project (like today) by reporting bug by using my time on isolate the bug and make tests cases with screenshoots to save your time in fixing it. Using Reac, Bootstrap, AngularJS or other similar is a back to 80's. How can I explain my customer that I need 3 ou 4 days to make thinks that took me 1 day with Flex ? The big competitive advantage of Apache Royale is not only be able to re-use Flex apps but is also simplicity and time saving where other SDK can't do it. (I think you already know that) I am convinced that all guys like me will jump using Royale when they will know that there is a bug free SDK with fast evolution available. (unfortunaly it's not known enough, nobody know someone working in newspapers ?) So please, I beg you, don't waste y
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
Hi All, I'm member of Apache Foundation for quite some time now. I think I have wrote maybe 2-3 emails during that time on members mailing list. - Why? - well I'm a person which doesn't like never ending stories, stories which are not end up with consensus nor action and I'm sorry but this is how it looks like in most cases there. Here we are in Apache Royale project where this thread ended up exactly the same - never ending story. - As PMC of this project I would like to say enough! :) I had hope that when Carlos and Chris try CI steps and in the process they may have some issues, but they will end up in the same place as I ended up where I was able to prepare RC1 in about 2h without the problem. It turns out that they end up in the place where I have started, in the place where I have spend 5-6 days of work to finally reach stable point. They ended up frustrated in the same way as I was! I really don't care now what kind of issue they have now, whether it's fixable or not - I just have enough of those never ending discussions where there is absolutely no results. I met Chris in US in Miami and I have spend with him best time ever, he is really great developer - if he is saying that he will have release process in 3-4 steps on my machine - I'm +1 make it so. Not tomorrow, not in a week - start today! Please start whole work on that and make it happen. I will be the first who try the process and maybe with Chris's help we will solve also issue with uploading artifacts to staging area which we had. Good Luck, Piotr czw., 26 mar 2020 o 12:02 napisał(a): > Hi Guys, > > I'm a lover of Flex dev guy since more than 10 years, been members of Flex > group on Montpellier (France) at golden age of Flex and go at all conferences > when Michaël Chaize came to Montpellier (and using Flex every day). > > First of all I want to thank every one of you for your hard work, and > congratulate you for the actual Apache Royale capabilities. > With the last features (especialy datagrid), today your great work make > possible to use Apache Royale in business application. Of course, there are > bugs, but when reported, it's quickly fix, this is great. > > Now, this is a huge opportunity but also risk for all guys like me to adop > Apache Royale for futur projects or use it instead of using Air when it's > possible. > Personnaly, I first use it on my own Webs applications and perhaps for my > customers on little applications for the begin. My big enormous worry is to > use it and be alone in front of a SDK bug. > Seeing new release every 1 or 2 months should certainly reassure me. For now > I see SDK 0.9.7 since a lot of time and this make me affraid and I don't > understand why there is no 0.9.8. > > I'm speaking as an Apache Royale SDK user : I'm very sad to read these > debates on the subject of tools to use for making release. I don't care about > tools nedeed or not to build the release SDK. > I would like use Apache Royale to build RAD (Rapid Application Dev) Web > applications and see more and more SDK features added, and participate to > project (like today) by reporting bug by using my time on isolate the bug > and make tests cases with screenshoots to save your time in fixing it. > > Using Reac, Bootstrap, AngularJS or other similar is a back to 80's. How can > I explain my customer that I need 3 ou 4 days to make thinks that took me 1 > day with Flex ? > The big competitive advantage of Apache Royale is not only be able to re-use > Flex apps but is also simplicity and time saving where other SDK can't do it. > (I think you already know that) > > I am convinced that all guys like me will jump using Royale when they will > know that there is a bug free SDK with fast evolution available. (unfortunaly > it's not known enough, nobody know someone working in newspapers ?) > > So please, I beg you, don't waste your time on things that are not essential > and like Carlos said, go forward. From outside view, Apache Royale stay > sticky to 0.9.7. > > You are so close of a v1.0, I hope see it very soon and other releases with > bugs fix every 1, 2 or 3 months. > Consider my comments as support and not criticism. > > Thanks again for your hard work. > > Long life and success to Apache Royale ! > > Fred > > > > Le 26.03.2020 09:26, Carlos Rovira a écrit : > > Hi, > > that's amazingly simple, so I think we should go that way without doubt. I > think reached this point there's a clear sense of that we need to go that > route. > > We tried our best to stick with the previous process and we're all > loosing lots of time. Then currently seems no more people in the community > was interested in this thread, event to comment a single line (here or in > the other users list thread), what means that or there's no more people > like us in this project or people really is not interested and just want us > to release and go forward. > > As previously I think most of the PMCs here (Om, Josh, Greg and me for >
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
Hi Guys, I'm a lover of Flex dev guy since more than 10 years, been members of Flex group on Montpellier (France) at golden age of Flex and go at all conferences when Michaël Chaize came to Montpellier (and using Flex every day). First of all I want to thank every one of you for your hard work, and congratulate you for the actual Apache Royale capabilities. With the last features (especialy datagrid), today your great work make possible to use Apache Royale in business application. Of course, there are bugs, but when reported, it's quickly fix, this is great. Now, this is a huge opportunity but also risk for all guys like me to adop Apache Royale for futur projects or use it instead of using Air when it's possible. Personnaly, I first use it on my own Webs applications and perhaps for my customers on little applications for the begin. My big enormous worry is to use it and be alone in front of a SDK bug. Seeing new release every 1 or 2 months should certainly reassure me. For now I see SDK 0.9.7 since a lot of time and this make me affraid and I don't understand why there is no 0.9.8. I'm speaking as an Apache Royale SDK user : I'm very sad to read these debates on the subject of tools to use for making release. I don't care about tools nedeed or not to build the release SDK. I would like use Apache Royale to build RAD (Rapid Application Dev) Web applications and see more and more SDK features added, and participate to project (like today) by reporting bug by using my time on isolate the bug and make tests cases with screenshoots to save your time in fixing it. Using Reac, Bootstrap, AngularJS or other similar is a back to 80's. How can I explain my customer that I need 3 ou 4 days to make thinks that took me 1 day with Flex ? The big competitive advantage of Apache Royale is not only be able to re-use Flex apps but is also simplicity and time saving where other SDK can't do it. (I think you already know that) I am convinced that all guys like me will jump using Royale when they will know that there is a bug free SDK with fast evolution available. (unfortunaly it's not known enough, nobody know someone working in newspapers ?) So please, I beg you, don't waste your time on things that are not essential and like Carlos said, go forward. From outside view, Apache Royale stay sticky to 0.9.7. You are so close of a v1.0, I hope see it very soon and other releases with bugs fix every 1, 2 or 3 months. Consider my comments as support and not criticism. Thanks again for your hard work. Long life and success to Apache Royale ! Fred Le 26.03.2020 09:26, Carlos Rovira a écrit : Hi, that's amazingly simple, so I think we should go that way without doubt. I think reached this point there's a clear sense of that we need to go that route. We tried our best to stick with the previous process and we're all loosing lots of time. Then currently seems no more people in the community was interested in this thread, event to comment a single line (here or in the other users list thread), what means that or there's no more people like us in this project or people really is not interested and just want us to release and go forward. As previously I think most of the PMCs here (Om, Josh, Greg and me for sure), probably Yishay for his concise comments are more for this. My thinking is that the right now I think only 2 PMCs are for CI Server, and other one that is uncertainly but didn't try the CI Server. I think all can live together while is not a must for the rest that don't want it the others option, so what's about if we release with the super-simple steps Chris proposal, and others wanting to use CI do that when is their RM turn ? (of course maintaining it and making it work for his release without requiring nothing for the rest that doesn't want it). Release as other projects do is recommended but not required, the same as the actual CI server (but this one should be less recommended since is a royale-only practice not seen in any other place). What's the important thing is to release, do it, and do it easily and often. Thanks El jue., 26 mar. 2020 a las 8:24, Christofer Dutz (< christofer.d...@c-ware.de>) escribió: Ok, I'll write this a last time as I do feel like we're going in circles and will from now on not participate in any discussion involving releasing on a CI server. A correct Maven release would use (There will be some additional profiles to activate to include all modules) 1) the "mvn release:branch" call in order to create the branch and bump the version of develop to the next version. 2) the "mvn release:prepare" to change the pom to the release version, set the timestamp in the pom (for reproducible builds) build ... if all tests are good, commit the changes, tag this commit, update the poms to the next development version, commit those changes and push everything. 3) the "mvn release:perform" which will checkout the tagged version build everything with the
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
Hi, that's amazingly simple, so I think we should go that way without doubt. I think reached this point there's a clear sense of that we need to go that route. We tried our best to stick with the previous process and we're all loosing lots of time. Then currently seems no more people in the community was interested in this thread, event to comment a single line (here or in the other users list thread), what means that or there's no more people like us in this project or people really is not interested and just want us to release and go forward. As previously I think most of the PMCs here (Om, Josh, Greg and me for sure), probably Yishay for his concise comments are more for this. My thinking is that the right now I think only 2 PMCs are for CI Server, and other one that is uncertainly but didn't try the CI Server. I think all can live together while is not a must for the rest that don't want it the others option, so what's about if we release with the super-simple steps Chris proposal, and others wanting to use CI do that when is their RM turn ? (of course maintaining it and making it work for his release without requiring nothing for the rest that doesn't want it). Release as other projects do is recommended but not required, the same as the actual CI server (but this one should be less recommended since is a royale-only practice not seen in any other place). What's the important thing is to release, do it, and do it easily and often. Thanks El jue., 26 mar. 2020 a las 8:24, Christofer Dutz (< christofer.d...@c-ware.de>) escribió: > Ok, > > I'll write this a last time as I do feel like we're going in circles and > will from now on not participate in any discussion involving releasing on a > CI server. > > A correct Maven release would use (There will be some additional profiles > to activate to include all modules) > > 1) the "mvn release:branch" call in order to create the branch and bump > the version of develop to the next version. > 2) the "mvn release:prepare" to change the pom to the release version, set > the timestamp in the pom (for reproducible builds) build ... if all tests > are good, commit the changes, tag this commit, update the poms to the next > development version, commit those changes and push everything. > 3) the "mvn release:perform" which will checkout the tagged version build > everything with the "apache-release" profile turned on (Which causes the > source.jars, Javadoc.jars, hashes and gpg singatures to be created as well > as the assembly) This also deploys the built artifacts to Nexus. > > Most of that you are already doing on the CI server however you're not > letting it do all automatically (For lack of credentials) > > But ... if you would just be doing those steps on the RM machine. > > Chris > > > > > > Am 26.03.20, 05:54 schrieb "Alex Harui" : > > > > On 3/25/20, 4:46 PM, "Carlos Rovira" wrote: > > > What I want to know is what the Maven commands should be to > create a > > release in this "conventional process" you are referring to. > > > > If you want to know what's the conventional maven process is, I > think I can > ask Chris if he wants to work with me on that process, since he > already did > many other Apache projects, we can expect the process is what is > needed for > us to. But just expect that will be a series of standard maven > commands > (prepare, release,...), so nothing strange at all (I expect). > > Do you want us to do that? > > Yes. I want to know what the series of standard Maven commands are. > Then we can figure out how to convert them to run on the CI server. > > -Alex > > Thanks > > > > > > Maybe someone else can explain better than me. > > > > -Alex > > > > On 3/25/20, 2:22 PM, "Carlos Rovira" > wrote: > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > El mié., 25 mar. 2020 a las 21:26, Alex Harui > > () > > escribió: > > > > > Carlos, > > > > > > I'm pretty sure that part of the "conventional process" > you want to > > try > > > requires filling the staging repo from a local machine. > > > > > > > This is what we already did. If you go to [1] will see [2]. > That was > > the > > upload of compiler to the staging repo. When trying to do > the same for > > typedefs it failed when trying to fill repo from local > machine. I think > > Chris or I should not take more time in trying to fix Ant > scripts that > > are > > failing. > > > > Thanks > > > > [1] > > >
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
Ok, I'll write this a last time as I do feel like we're going in circles and will from now on not participate in any discussion involving releasing on a CI server. A correct Maven release would use (There will be some additional profiles to activate to include all modules) 1) the "mvn release:branch" call in order to create the branch and bump the version of develop to the next version. 2) the "mvn release:prepare" to change the pom to the release version, set the timestamp in the pom (for reproducible builds) build ... if all tests are good, commit the changes, tag this commit, update the poms to the next development version, commit those changes and push everything. 3) the "mvn release:perform" which will checkout the tagged version build everything with the "apache-release" profile turned on (Which causes the source.jars, Javadoc.jars, hashes and gpg singatures to be created as well as the assembly) This also deploys the built artifacts to Nexus. Most of that you are already doing on the CI server however you're not letting it do all automatically (For lack of credentials) But ... if you would just be doing those steps on the RM machine. Chris Am 26.03.20, 05:54 schrieb "Alex Harui" : On 3/25/20, 4:46 PM, "Carlos Rovira" wrote: > What I want to know is what the Maven commands should be to create a > release in this "conventional process" you are referring to. > If you want to know what's the conventional maven process is, I think I can ask Chris if he wants to work with me on that process, since he already did many other Apache projects, we can expect the process is what is needed for us to. But just expect that will be a series of standard maven commands (prepare, release,...), so nothing strange at all (I expect). Do you want us to do that? Yes. I want to know what the series of standard Maven commands are. Then we can figure out how to convert them to run on the CI server. -Alex Thanks > > Maybe someone else can explain better than me. > > -Alex > > On 3/25/20, 2:22 PM, "Carlos Rovira" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > El mié., 25 mar. 2020 a las 21:26, Alex Harui > () > escribió: > > > Carlos, > > > > I'm pretty sure that part of the "conventional process" you want to > try > > requires filling the staging repo from a local machine. > > > > This is what we already did. If you go to [1] will see [2]. That was > the > upload of compiler to the staging repo. When trying to do the same for > typedefs it failed when trying to fill repo from local machine. I think > Chris or I should not take more time in trying to fix Ant scripts that > are > failing. > > Thanks > > [1] > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frepository.apache.org%2F%23stagingRepositoriesdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C821c810ff88f4f3371a608d7d116c8e0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637207768101866118sdata=qSFTmdvxYB8fK%2FKM5kAd%2Bzslsl0fNxUJi%2BybUIleIUY%3Dreserved=0 > [2] > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2Fa%2Fw4az7pDdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C821c810ff88f4f3371a608d7d116c8e0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637207768101866118sdata=mOv7%2BFzO764iEkXZgA3DiGEdeRaXQrLp%2Fgq8g%2BOkjt0%3Dreserved=0 > > > > > > > > -- > > Carlos Rovira > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosroviradata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C821c810ff88f4f3371a608d7d116c8e0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637207768101866118sdata=96pUSZqS1Sc%2FJ4%2BvUUIFpcKEW4b2DAj2FJjCvc9eW2k%3Dreserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > -- Carlos Rovira https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosroviradata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C821c810ff88f4f3371a608d7d116c8e0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637207768101866118sdata=96pUSZqS1Sc%2FJ4%2BvUUIFpcKEW4b2DAj2FJjCvc9eW2k%3Dreserved=0
ZipEntry and Reproducible Builds (was Re: Releasing: Finally giving up)
> of > > lucks in the process. > > > > Chris and I proposed to just use Maven *for release* (so please, > I > > expect > > no body starts to say we are throwing away ANT from the project > for > > building, pleasewe are just discussing release here). > > > > What do you think about to try to release just with Maven? If > can do > > in the > > next day or two and get the release published...will that work > for > > you? I > > think we don't need anything more, and I'm sure our users will be > > happy too. > > > > And yes, people wanting then to build with Ant or with Maven > will be > > able > > to do so... :-) > > > > Thanks > > > > Carlos > > > > > > [1] > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apache.org%2Fdev%2Frelease-publishing.htmldata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf9c8edc66d194754b80008d7d0fc8f9d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637207655475703139sdata=MDkT1GPQhM5BEqXcqjIHdMt%2FXqQOWDLUnbYFirNHC6c%3Dreserved=0 > > > > > > > > El mié., 25 mar. 2020 a las 17:46, Christofer Dutz (< > > christofer.d...@c-ware.de>) escribió: > > > > > Hi Yiashay, > > > > > > I agree ... but I didn't create Maven ... haven't even > provided a > > single > > > PR to it ;-) > > > I think my only noticeable contribution was that they changed > their > > > website to forbid the usage of "maven-{something}-plugin" to > Apache > > Maven > > > Core modules (It initially said Apache Maven Plugins which > would have > > > applied for maven-flex-plugin and maven-plc4x-plugin) > > > > > > I think you should focus not on the process, but the bases a > process > > > should cover. > > > > > > Focus on what you want to be provided or ensured by any > process, no > > matter > > > which tool it is based on. > > > > > > That's what I created the google doc for. > > > > > > If you decide to loosen the requirement on sticking 100% to the > > existing > > > process I am more than willing to help. > > > However if you stick to the current process, it doesn't make > any > > sense for > > > me to do so. > > > > > > Looking forward to a productive discussion, > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > Am 25.03.20, 17:36 schrieb "Yishay Weiss" < > yishayj...@hotmail.com>: > > > > > > I think the focus should be to agree on the requirements. > > Whether an > > > RM uses the tool created by Chris or Alex can be a matter of > choice. > > > > > > From: Carlos Rovira<mailto:carlosrov...@apache.org> > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 5:18 PM > > > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org > > > > > Subject: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > first of all, many thanks for all the time invested by > Chris this > > > days. We > > > almost didn't have any normal life this latest 2'5 days, > but as > > well > > > many > > > other work (spliced in many hour
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
On 3/25/20, 4:46 PM, "Carlos Rovira" wrote: > What I want to know is what the Maven commands should be to create a > release in this "conventional process" you are referring to. > If you want to know what's the conventional maven process is, I think I can ask Chris if he wants to work with me on that process, since he already did many other Apache projects, we can expect the process is what is needed for us to. But just expect that will be a series of standard maven commands (prepare, release,...), so nothing strange at all (I expect). Do you want us to do that? Yes. I want to know what the series of standard Maven commands are. Then we can figure out how to convert them to run on the CI server. -Alex Thanks > > Maybe someone else can explain better than me. > > -Alex > > On 3/25/20, 2:22 PM, "Carlos Rovira" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > El mié., 25 mar. 2020 a las 21:26, Alex Harui > () > escribió: > > > Carlos, > > > > I'm pretty sure that part of the "conventional process" you want to > try > > requires filling the staging repo from a local machine. > > > > This is what we already did. If you go to [1] will see [2]. That was > the > upload of compiler to the staging repo. When trying to do the same for > typedefs it failed when trying to fill repo from local machine. I think > Chris or I should not take more time in trying to fix Ant scripts that > are > failing. > > Thanks > > [1] > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frepository.apache.org%2F%23stagingRepositoriesdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C821c810ff88f4f3371a608d7d116c8e0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637207768101866118sdata=qSFTmdvxYB8fK%2FKM5kAd%2Bzslsl0fNxUJi%2BybUIleIUY%3Dreserved=0 > [2] > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2Fa%2Fw4az7pDdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C821c810ff88f4f3371a608d7d116c8e0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637207768101866118sdata=mOv7%2BFzO764iEkXZgA3DiGEdeRaXQrLp%2Fgq8g%2BOkjt0%3Dreserved=0 > > > > > > > > -- > > Carlos Rovira > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosroviradata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C821c810ff88f4f3371a608d7d116c8e0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637207768101866118sdata=96pUSZqS1Sc%2FJ4%2BvUUIFpcKEW4b2DAj2FJjCvc9eW2k%3Dreserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > -- Carlos Rovira https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosroviradata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C821c810ff88f4f3371a608d7d116c8e0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637207768101866118sdata=96pUSZqS1Sc%2FJ4%2BvUUIFpcKEW4b2DAj2FJjCvc9eW2k%3Dreserved=0
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
Hi Alex, El mié., 25 mar. 2020 a las 22:43, Alex Harui () escribió: > Carlos, > > When I wrote "from a local machine" that means to use whatever computer > you want to use and not the CI server or steps. ç maybe I there's a communication problem, but what I said is that I used my local machine not the CI Server (since is what the step required) to do the staging for step 007 email commands, and while that worked for compiler, It didn't for typedefs. > What I want to know is what the Maven commands should be to create a > release in this "conventional process" you are referring to. > If you want to know what's the conventional maven process is, I think I can ask Chris if he wants to work with me on that process, since he already did many other Apache projects, we can expect the process is what is needed for us to. But just expect that will be a series of standard maven commands (prepare, release,...), so nothing strange at all (I expect). Do you want us to do that? Thanks > > Maybe someone else can explain better than me. > > -Alex > > On 3/25/20, 2:22 PM, "Carlos Rovira" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > El mié., 25 mar. 2020 a las 21:26, Alex Harui > () > escribió: > > > Carlos, > > > > I'm pretty sure that part of the "conventional process" you want to > try > > requires filling the staging repo from a local machine. > > > > This is what we already did. If you go to [1] will see [2]. That was > the > upload of compiler to the staging repo. When trying to do the same for > typedefs it failed when trying to fill repo from local machine. I think > Chris or I should not take more time in trying to fix Ant scripts that > are > failing. > > Thanks > > [1] > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frepository.apache.org%2F%23stagingRepositoriesdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C2c3d44a188fa4d48de6208d7d1029468%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637207681319693950sdata=TUrFSD0DLQzYs32p2qnzKOl7OLSGLt45sneONbtUnBQ%3Dreserved=0 > [2] > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2Fa%2Fw4az7pDdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C2c3d44a188fa4d48de6208d7d1029468%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637207681319693950sdata=DKffSbD1IJkCejOgCaV6qu%2FWRvR%2B1nh5p05%2Fex0Zmfg%3Dreserved=0 > > > > > > > > -- > > Carlos Rovira > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosroviradata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C2c3d44a188fa4d48de6208d7d1029468%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637207681319693950sdata=H%2BzsfxujvhNDFfQzBT%2BVJG26as70%2BjpZLfCSS%2BCP6kc%3Dreserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
Carlos, When I wrote "from a local machine" that means to use whatever computer you want to use and not the CI server or steps. What I want to know is what the Maven commands should be to create a release in this "conventional process" you are referring to. Maybe someone else can explain better than me. -Alex On 3/25/20, 2:22 PM, "Carlos Rovira" wrote: Hi Alex, El mié., 25 mar. 2020 a las 21:26, Alex Harui () escribió: > Carlos, > > I'm pretty sure that part of the "conventional process" you want to try > requires filling the staging repo from a local machine. > This is what we already did. If you go to [1] will see [2]. That was the upload of compiler to the staging repo. When trying to do the same for typedefs it failed when trying to fill repo from local machine. I think Chris or I should not take more time in trying to fix Ant scripts that are failing. Thanks [1] https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frepository.apache.org%2F%23stagingRepositoriesdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C2c3d44a188fa4d48de6208d7d1029468%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637207681319693950sdata=TUrFSD0DLQzYs32p2qnzKOl7OLSGLt45sneONbtUnBQ%3Dreserved=0 [2] https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2Fa%2Fw4az7pDdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C2c3d44a188fa4d48de6208d7d1029468%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637207681319693950sdata=DKffSbD1IJkCejOgCaV6qu%2FWRvR%2B1nh5p05%2Fex0Zmfg%3Dreserved=0 > > -- > Carlos Rovira > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosroviradata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C2c3d44a188fa4d48de6208d7d1029468%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637207681319693950sdata=H%2BzsfxujvhNDFfQzBT%2BVJG26as70%2BjpZLfCSS%2BCP6kc%3Dreserved=0 > > > >
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
Hi Alex, El mié., 25 mar. 2020 a las 21:26, Alex Harui () escribió: > Carlos, > > I'm pretty sure that part of the "conventional process" you want to try > requires filling the staging repo from a local machine. > This is what we already did. If you go to [1] will see [2]. That was the upload of compiler to the staging repo. When trying to do the same for typedefs it failed when trying to fill repo from local machine. I think Chris or I should not take more time in trying to fix Ant scripts that are failing. Thanks [1] https://repository.apache.org/#stagingRepositories [2] https://imgur.com/a/w4az7pD > > -- > Carlos Rovira > http://about.me/carlosrovira > > > >
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
or ensured by any > process, no > > matter > > > which tool it is based on. > > > > > > That's what I created the google doc for. > > > > > > If you decide to loosen the requirement on sticking 100% to the > > existing > > > process I am more than willing to help. > > > However if you stick to the current process, it doesn't make > any > > sense for > > > me to do so. > > > > > > Looking forward to a productive discussion, > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > Am 25.03.20, 17:36 schrieb "Yishay Weiss" < > yishayj...@hotmail.com>: > > > > > > I think the focus should be to agree on the requirements. > > Whether an > > > RM uses the tool created by Chris or Alex can be a matter of > choice. > > > > > > From: Carlos Rovira<mailto:carlosrov...@apache.org> > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 5:18 PM > > > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org > > > > > Subject: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > first of all, many thanks for all the time invested by > Chris this > > > days. We > > > almost didn't have any normal life this latest 2'5 days, > but as > > well > > > many > > > other work (spliced in many hours in the several previous > days) > > was > > > prepared to start this release, so for a person out side > this > > project, > > > I > > > think we all should thanks a lot his dedications. The good > > output is > > > that > > > process was streamlined, removing unneeded params to enter > and > > fixing > > > many > > > bugs over the place. That only can be performed by a good > > specialist in > > > build systems like Chris, I just could be a companion to > execute > > steps > > > and > > > try to be trained in the process. > > > > > > About me: I must to say that I tried hard to make this > work, but > > I must > > > assume I don't have the skills to do it (what is normal, > since > > if an > > > expert > > > in build stuff like Chris can't do it, I don't think any > other > > one > > > could do > > > it, and less me). The good point is that I know I have a > great a > > deep > > > knowledge about the overall process, and while in November > I > > could > > > envision, something of what I could see this days, now I > have a > > clear > > > knowledge of all of it (taking into account that we just go > > through > > > compiler and typedefs and not framework, that could be, > due to > > size, a > > > much > > > bigger challenge...) > > > > > > About the process: I must say that the initial intention > was so > > good, > > > and I > > > think we all want the premise offered thanks to Alex. The > > reality I > > > think > > > is defeating the premise, and we should all see the > reality with > > clear > > > sight and without worrying about egos but just looking and > what > > the > > > project > > > need. > > > > > > Since the CI process involves so many steps, manual > commands in > > CI > > > steps, > > > and...manual commands in lo
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
MC. > > That's what makes the need of the actual CI steps and the > complex and > > intricate process. > > > > For the rest of Apache a release is: > > > > "For an *Apache* project, that means any publication outside the > > development community, defined as individuals actively > participating in > > development or following the dev list. More narrowly, an official > > *Apache > > release* is one which has been endorsed as an "act of the > Foundation" > > by a > > PMC." > > > > That means that we can release with ANT, with Maven, or any > other build > > systems as part of the process, and even try what we're doing of > > trying to > > build with n build systems and try to check all is ok with the > > artifacts > > generated by all that build systems and check all of them...but > if > > that's > > what we want, I personally will left this wagon, and wish you > the best > > of > > lucks in the process. > > > > Chris and I proposed to just use Maven *for release* (so please, > I > > expect > > no body starts to say we are throwing away ANT from the project > for > > building, pleasewe are just discussing release here). > > > > What do you think about to try to release just with Maven? If > can do > > in the > > next day or two and get the release published...will that work > for > > you? I > > think we don't need anything more, and I'm sure our users will be > > happy too. > > > > And yes, people wanting then to build with Ant or with Maven > will be > > able > > to do so... :-) > > > > Thanks > > > > Carlos > > > > > > [1] > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apache.org%2Fdev%2Frelease-publishing.htmldata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ccaac200c25a74888e76008d7d0e83611%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637207568075948274sdata=dsxwqItfcgSIUYZMYzgMziBunHmiBgubwQfiHAsaovA%3Dreserved=0 > > > > > > > > El mié., 25 mar. 2020 a las 17:46, Christofer Dutz (< > > christofer.d...@c-ware.de>) escribió: > > > > > Hi Yiashay, > > > > > > I agree ... but I didn't create Maven ... haven't even > provided a > > single > > > PR to it ;-) > > > I think my only noticeable contribution was that they changed > their > > > website to forbid the usage of "maven-{something}-plugin" to > Apache > > Maven > > > Core modules (It initially said Apache Maven Plugins which > would have > > > applied for maven-flex-plugin and maven-plc4x-plugin) > > > > > > I think you should focus not on the process, but the bases a > process > > > should cover. > > > > > > Focus on what you want to be provided or ensured by any > process, no > > matter > > > which tool it is based on. > > > > > > That's what I created the google doc for. > > > > > > If you decide to loosen the requirement on sticking 100% to the > > existing > > > process I am more than willing to help. > > > However if you stick to the current process, it doesn't make > any > > sense for > > > me to do so. > > > > > > Looking forward to a productive discussion, > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > Am 25.03.20, 17:36 schrieb "Yishay Weiss" < > yishayj...@hotmail.com>: > > > > > > I think the focus should be to agree on the requirements. > > Whether an > > > RM uses the tool created by Chris or Alex can be a matter of > choice. > > > > > > From: Carlos Rovira<mailto:carlosrov...@apache.org> > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 5:18 PM > > > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org > > > > > Subject: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up > > > > >
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
Carlos, I'm pretty sure that part of the "conventional process" you want to try requires filling the staging repo from a local machine. I am suggesting that Chris and/or you do exactly that and document the steps and have someone else try those steps, so we can understand what that portion of the "conventional process" looks like. Then it might be more clear what needs to be done to get it work on the CI server. -Alex On 3/25/20, 1:16 PM, "Carlos Rovira" wrote: Hi Alex, El mié., 25 mar. 2020 a las 20:37, Alex Harui () escribió: > But as I suggested in my previous post, it might help to first come up > with the set of maven commands required to reproduce (using your local > machine) the same number of files with the same names (other than the > version portion) that were in 0.9.6. > I think we're done what the process required. If there's other things we need to do, those are not in the current process, so I think is your responsibility to update that to make it work to prove that the process is valid. I think you can't expect Chris or I invest more time in the process when we are exposing all the problems behind it. I think we did our best, and now is the turn of others to try it, or as I already proposed lets us do a release with a more conventional process that does not try to do all that steps, that we think are not necessary, based on the rest of hundreds and hundreds of Apache projects. Hope you can understand it. Thanks -- Carlos Rovira https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosroviradata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C467696ba4ee245a5f09108d7d0f957f1%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637207641651664238sdata=HdyvFUveH6nxvIkp%2FSyPyzfkfTQ6TJHTtN24GZC0vjs%3Dreserved=0
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
Hi, Alex El mié., 25 mar. 2020 a las 19:23, Alex Harui () escribió: > That has nothing to do with the Ant build of release artifacts. That is > just using Ant to run command line commands to download and verify Maven > release artifacts. I'm pretty sure you can just look at the steps and type > them in manually at the command line and you'll get the same results. > As I said, this requested step from the CI Server failed for me, so I could not sign and then upload. Is what we're trying to say. -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
> happy too. > > And yes, people wanting then to build with Ant or with Maven will be > able > to do so... :-) > > Thanks > > Carlos > > > [1] > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apache.org%2Fdev%2Frelease-publishing.htmldata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ccaac200c25a74888e76008d7d0e83611%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637207568075948274sdata=dsxwqItfcgSIUYZMYzgMziBunHmiBgubwQfiHAsaovA%3Dreserved=0 > > > > El mié., 25 mar. 2020 a las 17:46, Christofer Dutz (< > christofer.d...@c-ware.de>) escribió: > > > Hi Yiashay, > > > > I agree ... but I didn't create Maven ... haven't even provided a > single > > PR to it ;-) > > I think my only noticeable contribution was that they changed their > > website to forbid the usage of "maven-{something}-plugin" to Apache > Maven > > Core modules (It initially said Apache Maven Plugins which would have > > applied for maven-flex-plugin and maven-plc4x-plugin) > > > > I think you should focus not on the process, but the bases a process > > should cover. > > > > Focus on what you want to be provided or ensured by any process, no > matter > > which tool it is based on. > > > > That's what I created the google doc for. > > > > If you decide to loosen the requirement on sticking 100% to the > existing > > process I am more than willing to help. > > However if you stick to the current process, it doesn't make any > sense for > > me to do so. > > > > Looking forward to a productive discussion, > > > > Chris > > > > > > Am 25.03.20, 17:36 schrieb "Yishay Weiss" : > > > > I think the focus should be to agree on the requirements. > Whether an > > RM uses the tool created by Chris or Alex can be a matter of choice. > > > > From: Carlos Rovira<mailto:carlosrov...@apache.org> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 5:18 PM > > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> > > Subject: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up > > > > Hi, > > > > first of all, many thanks for all the time invested by Chris this > > days. We > > almost didn't have any normal life this latest 2'5 days, but as > well > > many > > other work (spliced in many hours in the several previous days) > was > > prepared to start this release, so for a person out side this > project, > > I > > think we all should thanks a lot his dedications. The good > output is > > that > > process was streamlined, removing unneeded params to enter and > fixing > > many > > bugs over the place. That only can be performed by a good > specialist in > > build systems like Chris, I just could be a companion to execute > steps > > and > > try to be trained in the process. > > > > About me: I must to say that I tried hard to make this work, but > I must > > assume I don't have the skills to do it (what is normal, since > if an > > expert > > in build stuff like Chris can't do it, I don't think any other > one > > could do > > it, and less me). The good point is that I know I have a great a > deep > > knowledge about the overall process, and while in November I > could > > envision, something of what I could see this days, now I have a > clear > > knowledge of all of it (taking into account that we just go > through > > compiler and typedefs and not framework, that could be, due to > size, a > > much > > bigger challenge...) > > > > About the process: I must say that the initial intention was so > good, > > and I > > think we all want the premise offered thanks to Alex. The > reality I > > think > > is defeating the premise, and we
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
ould cover. > > > > Focus on what you want to be provided or ensured by any process, no > matter > > which tool it is based on. > > > > That's what I created the google doc for. > > > > If you decide to loosen the requirement on sticking 100% to the > existing > > process I am more than willing to help. > > However if you stick to the current process, it doesn't make any > sense for > > me to do so. > > > > Looking forward to a productive discussion, > > > > Chris > > > > > > Am 25.03.20, 17:36 schrieb "Yishay Weiss" : > > > > I think the focus should be to agree on the requirements. > Whether an > > RM uses the tool created by Chris or Alex can be a matter of choice. > > > > From: Carlos Rovira<mailto:carlosrov...@apache.org> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 5:18 PM > > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> > > Subject: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up > > > > Hi, > > > > first of all, many thanks for all the time invested by Chris this > > days. We > > almost didn't have any normal life this latest 2'5 days, but as > well > > many > > other work (spliced in many hours in the several previous days) > was > > prepared to start this release, so for a person out side this > project, > > I > > think we all should thanks a lot his dedications. The good > output is > > that > > process was streamlined, removing unneeded params to enter and > fixing > > many > > bugs over the place. That only can be performed by a good > specialist in > > build systems like Chris, I just could be a companion to execute > steps > > and > > try to be trained in the process. > > > > About me: I must to say that I tried hard to make this work, but > I must > > assume I don't have the skills to do it (what is normal, since > if an > > expert > > in build stuff like Chris can't do it, I don't think any other > one > > could do > > it, and less me). The good point is that I know I have a great a > deep > > knowledge about the overall process, and while in November I > could > > envision, something of what I could see this days, now I have a > clear > > knowledge of all of it (taking into account that we just go > through > > compiler and typedefs and not framework, that could be, due to > size, a > > much > > bigger challenge...) > > > > About the process: I must say that the initial intention was so > good, > > and I > > think we all want the premise offered thanks to Alex. The > reality I > > think > > is defeating the premise, and we should all see the reality with > clear > > sight and without worrying about egos but just looking and what > the > > project > > need. > > > > Since the CI process involves so many steps, manual commands in > CI > > steps, > > and...manual commands in local machine. One of the most annoying > > things is > > the CI server hanging lots of time (the Java agent exits and that > > means you > > must reboot in order the system working all again without > problems). > > The > > final problem is that you as a RM will fail some times in doing > what > > the > > process needs (indicated in emails), and although you are > trained a > > lot in > > how to do the project you will found stuck in some situations > where you > > simple don't know what to do. > > > > (For example I forgot or did a bad step that makes me rollover > things > > in > > succeed steps, so I had to roll back versions in the compiler, > but > > since I > > was doing a tools release too, I didn't have into account that I > need > > to > > roll back versions in tools too. It's clear as Chris notice > that, but > > not > > for me at all. So we all should know with this example that the > > process is > > not automatic at all. If just involve 2-3 steps, that would be > > manageable, > > but we are t
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
I'm sorry, I must have missed something. Where was Ant involved in any of the problems reported so far? AFAICT, it was all Maven plugins driving our compiler and we couldn't get reproducible binaries. I suggested in one reply that Chris fills a staging repo using his local machine just to make sure we know what Maven commands need to be run to generate all of the Maven artifacts. And that would validate the claim that it is really doable in two or three steps. A partial verification of validity is to check that the same set of files was produced as in 0.9.6 (there might be some new SWCs though). Then someone else (maybe Carlos) would download all of the artifacts, run the same steps, download the new artifacts and verify that the binary match. Then we can work on splitting those steps into chunks for the CI server. -Alex On 3/25/20, 10:13 AM, "Carlos Rovira" wrote: We imposed ourselves a need to release building with two build systems. That's the biggest issue and that's a requirement of this PMC. That's what makes the need of the actual CI steps and the complex and intricate process. For the rest of Apache a release is: "For an *Apache* project, that means any publication outside the development community, defined as individuals actively participating in development or following the dev list. More narrowly, an official *Apache release* is one which has been endorsed as an "act of the Foundation" by a PMC." That means that we can release with ANT, with Maven, or any other build systems as part of the process, and even try what we're doing of trying to build with n build systems and try to check all is ok with the artifacts generated by all that build systems and check all of them...but if that's what we want, I personally will left this wagon, and wish you the best of lucks in the process. Chris and I proposed to just use Maven *for release* (so please, I expect no body starts to say we are throwing away ANT from the project for building, pleasewe are just discussing release here). What do you think about to try to release just with Maven? If can do in the next day or two and get the release published...will that work for you? I think we don't need anything more, and I'm sure our users will be happy too. And yes, people wanting then to build with Ant or with Maven will be able to do so... :-) Thanks Carlos [1] https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apache.org%2Fdev%2Frelease-publishing.htmldata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C051d4367ac9743249ec808d7d0dfd038%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637207532001774243sdata=JWLztd6WGtyugYMEzRLqytO41ypZsDYQIdUhaPIMEG4%3Dreserved=0 El mié., 25 mar. 2020 a las 17:46, Christofer Dutz (< christofer.d...@c-ware.de>) escribió: > Hi Yiashay, > > I agree ... but I didn't create Maven ... haven't even provided a single > PR to it ;-) > I think my only noticeable contribution was that they changed their > website to forbid the usage of "maven-{something}-plugin" to Apache Maven > Core modules (It initially said Apache Maven Plugins which would have > applied for maven-flex-plugin and maven-plc4x-plugin) > > I think you should focus not on the process, but the bases a process > should cover. > > Focus on what you want to be provided or ensured by any process, no matter > which tool it is based on. > > That's what I created the google doc for. > > If you decide to loosen the requirement on sticking 100% to the existing > process I am more than willing to help. > However if you stick to the current process, it doesn't make any sense for > me to do so. > > Looking forward to a productive discussion, > > Chris > > > Am 25.03.20, 17:36 schrieb "Yishay Weiss" : > > I think the focus should be to agree on the requirements. Whether an > RM uses the tool created by Chris or Alex can be a matter of choice. > > From: Carlos Rovira<mailto:carlosrov...@apache.org> > Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 5:18 PM > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up > > Hi, > > first of all, many thanks for all the time invested by Chris this > days. We > almost didn't have any normal life this latest 2'5 days, but as well > many > other work (spliced in many hours in the several previous days) was > prepared to start this release, so for a person out side this project, &
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
We imposed ourselves a need to release building with two build systems. That's the biggest issue and that's a requirement of this PMC. That's what makes the need of the actual CI steps and the complex and intricate process. For the rest of Apache a release is: "For an *Apache* project, that means any publication outside the development community, defined as individuals actively participating in development or following the dev list. More narrowly, an official *Apache release* is one which has been endorsed as an "act of the Foundation" by a PMC." That means that we can release with ANT, with Maven, or any other build systems as part of the process, and even try what we're doing of trying to build with n build systems and try to check all is ok with the artifacts generated by all that build systems and check all of them...but if that's what we want, I personally will left this wagon, and wish you the best of lucks in the process. Chris and I proposed to just use Maven *for release* (so please, I expect no body starts to say we are throwing away ANT from the project for building, pleasewe are just discussing release here). What do you think about to try to release just with Maven? If can do in the next day or two and get the release published...will that work for you? I think we don't need anything more, and I'm sure our users will be happy too. And yes, people wanting then to build with Ant or with Maven will be able to do so... :-) Thanks Carlos [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html El mié., 25 mar. 2020 a las 17:46, Christofer Dutz (< christofer.d...@c-ware.de>) escribió: > Hi Yiashay, > > I agree ... but I didn't create Maven ... haven't even provided a single > PR to it ;-) > I think my only noticeable contribution was that they changed their > website to forbid the usage of "maven-{something}-plugin" to Apache Maven > Core modules (It initially said Apache Maven Plugins which would have > applied for maven-flex-plugin and maven-plc4x-plugin) > > I think you should focus not on the process, but the bases a process > should cover. > > Focus on what you want to be provided or ensured by any process, no matter > which tool it is based on. > > That's what I created the google doc for. > > If you decide to loosen the requirement on sticking 100% to the existing > process I am more than willing to help. > However if you stick to the current process, it doesn't make any sense for > me to do so. > > Looking forward to a productive discussion, > > Chris > > > Am 25.03.20, 17:36 schrieb "Yishay Weiss" : > > I think the focus should be to agree on the requirements. Whether an > RM uses the tool created by Chris or Alex can be a matter of choice. > > From: Carlos Rovira<mailto:carlosrov...@apache.org> > Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 5:18 PM > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up > > Hi, > > first of all, many thanks for all the time invested by Chris this > days. We > almost didn't have any normal life this latest 2'5 days, but as well > many > other work (spliced in many hours in the several previous days) was > prepared to start this release, so for a person out side this project, > I > think we all should thanks a lot his dedications. The good output is > that > process was streamlined, removing unneeded params to enter and fixing > many > bugs over the place. That only can be performed by a good specialist in > build systems like Chris, I just could be a companion to execute steps > and > try to be trained in the process. > > About me: I must to say that I tried hard to make this work, but I must > assume I don't have the skills to do it (what is normal, since if an > expert > in build stuff like Chris can't do it, I don't think any other one > could do > it, and less me). The good point is that I know I have a great a deep > knowledge about the overall process, and while in November I could > envision, something of what I could see this days, now I have a clear > knowledge of all of it (taking into account that we just go through > compiler and typedefs and not framework, that could be, due to size, a > much > bigger challenge...) > > About the process: I must say that the initial intention was so good, > and I > think we all want the premise offered thanks to Alex. The reality I > think > is defeating the premise, and we should all see the reality with clear > sight and without worrying about egos but just looking and what the > project > need. > > Since the CI process involves so many steps, manual
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
Hi Yiashay, I agree ... but I didn't create Maven ... haven't even provided a single PR to it ;-) I think my only noticeable contribution was that they changed their website to forbid the usage of "maven-{something}-plugin" to Apache Maven Core modules (It initially said Apache Maven Plugins which would have applied for maven-flex-plugin and maven-plc4x-plugin) I think you should focus not on the process, but the bases a process should cover. Focus on what you want to be provided or ensured by any process, no matter which tool it is based on. That's what I created the google doc for. If you decide to loosen the requirement on sticking 100% to the existing process I am more than willing to help. However if you stick to the current process, it doesn't make any sense for me to do so. Looking forward to a productive discussion, Chris Am 25.03.20, 17:36 schrieb "Yishay Weiss" : I think the focus should be to agree on the requirements. Whether an RM uses the tool created by Chris or Alex can be a matter of choice. From: Carlos Rovira<mailto:carlosrov...@apache.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 5:18 PM To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> Subject: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up Hi, first of all, many thanks for all the time invested by Chris this days. We almost didn't have any normal life this latest 2'5 days, but as well many other work (spliced in many hours in the several previous days) was prepared to start this release, so for a person out side this project, I think we all should thanks a lot his dedications. The good output is that process was streamlined, removing unneeded params to enter and fixing many bugs over the place. That only can be performed by a good specialist in build systems like Chris, I just could be a companion to execute steps and try to be trained in the process. About me: I must to say that I tried hard to make this work, but I must assume I don't have the skills to do it (what is normal, since if an expert in build stuff like Chris can't do it, I don't think any other one could do it, and less me). The good point is that I know I have a great a deep knowledge about the overall process, and while in November I could envision, something of what I could see this days, now I have a clear knowledge of all of it (taking into account that we just go through compiler and typedefs and not framework, that could be, due to size, a much bigger challenge...) About the process: I must say that the initial intention was so good, and I think we all want the premise offered thanks to Alex. The reality I think is defeating the premise, and we should all see the reality with clear sight and without worrying about egos but just looking and what the project need. Since the CI process involves so many steps, manual commands in CI steps, and...manual commands in local machine. One of the most annoying things is the CI server hanging lots of time (the Java agent exits and that means you must reboot in order the system working all again without problems). The final problem is that you as a RM will fail some times in doing what the process needs (indicated in emails), and although you are trained a lot in how to do the project you will found stuck in some situations where you simple don't know what to do. (For example I forgot or did a bad step that makes me rollover things in succeed steps, so I had to roll back versions in the compiler, but since I was doing a tools release too, I didn't have into account that I need to roll back versions in tools too. It's clear as Chris notice that, but not for me at all. So we all should know with this example that the process is not automatic at all. If just involve 2-3 steps, that would be manageable, but we are talking of 13 steps with 32 manual steps (until step 7), plus maybe other 30 or so commands until step 13?)...hope you understand the challenge here and that is nothing easy for any of us. What I mean, and my advice, from someone that loves this project and want it to make it shine: We should try to simple focus in what's important. Chris is offering a way that ensures release done simple and easily. My take is that we can't afford to go this way more time, since the project will see his existence threatened. We're here many years here, and this actual problem is a big one. It's clear that we have a problem if we can release every month (or two month) with a process that is easy for everyone and requires not a great training to do so, and will require some few commands and operations to be done. We simply can't release, and we can rely in a process that is so fragile, to make every change we do in the future
RE: Releasing: Finally giving up
I think the focus should be to agree on the requirements. Whether an RM uses the tool created by Chris or Alex can be a matter of choice. From: Carlos Rovira<mailto:carlosrov...@apache.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 5:18 PM To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> Subject: Re: Releasing: Finally giving up Hi, first of all, many thanks for all the time invested by Chris this days. We almost didn't have any normal life this latest 2'5 days, but as well many other work (spliced in many hours in the several previous days) was prepared to start this release, so for a person out side this project, I think we all should thanks a lot his dedications. The good output is that process was streamlined, removing unneeded params to enter and fixing many bugs over the place. That only can be performed by a good specialist in build systems like Chris, I just could be a companion to execute steps and try to be trained in the process. About me: I must to say that I tried hard to make this work, but I must assume I don't have the skills to do it (what is normal, since if an expert in build stuff like Chris can't do it, I don't think any other one could do it, and less me). The good point is that I know I have a great a deep knowledge about the overall process, and while in November I could envision, something of what I could see this days, now I have a clear knowledge of all of it (taking into account that we just go through compiler and typedefs and not framework, that could be, due to size, a much bigger challenge...) About the process: I must say that the initial intention was so good, and I think we all want the premise offered thanks to Alex. The reality I think is defeating the premise, and we should all see the reality with clear sight and without worrying about egos but just looking and what the project need. Since the CI process involves so many steps, manual commands in CI steps, and...manual commands in local machine. One of the most annoying things is the CI server hanging lots of time (the Java agent exits and that means you must reboot in order the system working all again without problems). The final problem is that you as a RM will fail some times in doing what the process needs (indicated in emails), and although you are trained a lot in how to do the project you will found stuck in some situations where you simple don't know what to do. (For example I forgot or did a bad step that makes me rollover things in succeed steps, so I had to roll back versions in the compiler, but since I was doing a tools release too, I didn't have into account that I need to roll back versions in tools too. It's clear as Chris notice that, but not for me at all. So we all should know with this example that the process is not automatic at all. If just involve 2-3 steps, that would be manageable, but we are talking of 13 steps with 32 manual steps (until step 7), plus maybe other 30 or so commands until step 13?)...hope you understand the challenge here and that is nothing easy for any of us. What I mean, and my advice, from someone that loves this project and want it to make it shine: We should try to simple focus in what's important. Chris is offering a way that ensures release done simple and easily. My take is that we can't afford to go this way more time, since the project will see his existence threatened. We're here many years here, and this actual problem is a big one. It's clear that we have a problem if we can release every month (or two month) with a process that is easy for everyone and requires not a great training to do so, and will require some few commands and operations to be done. We simply can't release, and we can rely in a process that is so fragile, to make every change we do in the future will break it. The fact is that we didn't get so many people jumping to Royale and the ones with an eye on this project can finally gone if we continue trying to force things that we don't need. We can release just with maven in few steps, that's a fact, and we don't really need to make things in the actual way. If we do is because we're forcing it, but nobody cares, and my vision is that will cost the project. We simplify the build Maven process to make it more reliable, that break the release process in November. The build process has priority over the release process, since lots of users depend on them (royale devs, and users). The release process is important in the project context to offer the bits to the public as a tag or point in time. We simply can't put the release process to the service of the build process and make all of that stop in time to not break a fragile release process. That's not an option for an open source project. The release process is at the service of the rest (people, builds, code) I'd want people here to rethink all of this since: - We can't afford this project not to release easily monthly (or every 2 months) for anyone here (an
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
> > > > > We are passing in the timestamp (slightly different format, however still > correct as we also adjusted the format-string). When building locally, the > timestamp is exactly as the timestamp string tells the compiler. On the CI > however there’s this 60 minute offset. I have explicitly set the time-zone > wherever I found time-zone relevant code to UTC (Which is the general best > practice for date stuff). However the offset didn’t change. So I am > completely out of ideas what could be causing this. If it really is the > Summertime in the US, well I don’t know how to fix it (perhaps setup a rule > to not release in this time). > Thanks for all the hard work. It is really appreciated! Dumb question - have you tried setting the computer date/time manually on the server to match what you have? Just see if the problem goes away? Thanks, Om
Re: Releasing: Finally giving up
Hi, first of all, many thanks for all the time invested by Chris this days. We almost didn't have any normal life this latest 2'5 days, but as well many other work (spliced in many hours in the several previous days) was prepared to start this release, so for a person out side this project, I think we all should thanks a lot his dedications. The good output is that process was streamlined, removing unneeded params to enter and fixing many bugs over the place. That only can be performed by a good specialist in build systems like Chris, I just could be a companion to execute steps and try to be trained in the process. About me: I must to say that I tried hard to make this work, but I must assume I don't have the skills to do it (what is normal, since if an expert in build stuff like Chris can't do it, I don't think any other one could do it, and less me). The good point is that I know I have a great a deep knowledge about the overall process, and while in November I could envision, something of what I could see this days, now I have a clear knowledge of all of it (taking into account that we just go through compiler and typedefs and not framework, that could be, due to size, a much bigger challenge...) About the process: I must say that the initial intention was so good, and I think we all want the premise offered thanks to Alex. The reality I think is defeating the premise, and we should all see the reality with clear sight and without worrying about egos but just looking and what the project need. Since the CI process involves so many steps, manual commands in CI steps, and...manual commands in local machine. One of the most annoying things is the CI server hanging lots of time (the Java agent exits and that means you must reboot in order the system working all again without problems). The final problem is that you as a RM will fail some times in doing what the process needs (indicated in emails), and although you are trained a lot in how to do the project you will found stuck in some situations where you simple don't know what to do. (For example I forgot or did a bad step that makes me rollover things in succeed steps, so I had to roll back versions in the compiler, but since I was doing a tools release too, I didn't have into account that I need to roll back versions in tools too. It's clear as Chris notice that, but not for me at all. So we all should know with this example that the process is not automatic at all. If just involve 2-3 steps, that would be manageable, but we are talking of 13 steps with 32 manual steps (until step 7), plus maybe other 30 or so commands until step 13?)...hope you understand the challenge here and that is nothing easy for any of us. What I mean, and my advice, from someone that loves this project and want it to make it shine: We should try to simple focus in what's important. Chris is offering a way that ensures release done simple and easily. My take is that we can't afford to go this way more time, since the project will see his existence threatened. We're here many years here, and this actual problem is a big one. It's clear that we have a problem if we can release every month (or two month) with a process that is easy for everyone and requires not a great training to do so, and will require some few commands and operations to be done. We simply can't release, and we can rely in a process that is so fragile, to make every change we do in the future will break it. The fact is that we didn't get so many people jumping to Royale and the ones with an eye on this project can finally gone if we continue trying to force things that we don't need. We can release just with maven in few steps, that's a fact, and we don't really need to make things in the actual way. If we do is because we're forcing it, but nobody cares, and my vision is that will cost the project. We simplify the build Maven process to make it more reliable, that break the release process in November. The build process has priority over the release process, since lots of users depend on them (royale devs, and users). The release process is important in the project context to offer the bits to the public as a tag or point in time. We simply can't put the release process to the service of the build process and make all of that stop in time to not break a fragile release process. That's not an option for an open source project. The release process is at the service of the rest (people, builds, code) I'd want people here to rethink all of this since: - We can't afford this project not to release easily monthly (or every 2 months) for anyone here (and I mean all people here that wants to be an RM). - We can't afford so many hours invested to release, or to maintain a process that is very, very, very difficult to operate, fragile and easy to break. The motivations are: 1. Although the process was designed and done with very good intentions, the final product does not match