Milestone to track 1.0.0 - https://github.com/apache/daffodil-vscode/milestone/1
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 7:48 AM John Wass <jwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > You mention a VSIX + ZIP? What is the zip you reference? Is that the > source, or are there two convenience binaries that make up an extension? > > The backend is packaged as a zip, separate from the extension, to provide > support for debugging against multiple Daffodil versions. > > > > If we want to upload things to GitHub releases once things pass, that's > probably okay, but anything else probably doesn't follow ASF guidelines. > > That's what was agreed upon previously. I don't have a strong opinion on > automated publishing, does sound like it would complicate the ASF process. > > Other Apache projects publish to GitHub, perhaps we can learn from them. > > > > Seems odd the build.sbt and create_vsix.sh files are in here. Is that a > bug? > > The ignores need to be updated. > > https://github.com/apache/daffodil-vscode/issues/30 > > > > > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 12:50 PM Steve Lawrence <slawre...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> I ran the ./create_vsix.sh script, and it does create a .vsix file, but >> when I unzip that file, this is the contents: >> >> . >> |-- [Content_Types].xml >> |-- extension >> | |-- LICENSE.txt >> | |-- NOTICE >> | |-- README.md >> | |-- build.sbt >> | |-- create_vsix.sh >> | |-- dist >> | | `-- ext >> | | `-- extension.js >> | |-- images >> | | |-- arrow.svg >> | | `-- daffodil.jpg >> | |-- package.json >> | `-- snippets >> | |-- dfdl.json >> | `-- json-license.txt >> `-- extension.vsixmanifest >> >> Seems odd the build.sbt and create_vsix.sh files are in here. Is that a >> bug? >> >> It looks like all the ts files are combined and minimized into the >> single extension.js file. I'm not sure where the dependencies are >> though. Maybe they are downloaded dynamically? Or maybe just the parts >> that are used are are "statically compiled" into this extension.js? So >> we can't easily know which dependencies actually end up in this .vsix >> file? >> >> Also, the debugger .jar and its dependencies aren't in this vsix file? >> Are those distributed/downloaded separately? Seems like they would >> wanted to be distributed in the .vsix file so you just need to >> distribute/install a single file? Is that possible? >> >> It's important to understand this so we can figure out what >> LICENSE/NOTICE information is needed in this .vsix convenience binary. >> >> >> On 10/13/21 12:22 PM, Adam Rosien wrote: >> > My understanding is the Typescript code gets "compiled" into Javascript >> > when built and packaged. >> > >> > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 9:07 AM Mike Beckerle <mbecke...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > >> >> Does the typescript code get compiled to a binary form (e.g., >> analogous to >> >> a jar) or is it distributed as source (e.g., more like javascript)? >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 11:12 AM John Wass <jwa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Status on Mike's original list >> >>> 1-4 complete >> >>> >> >>> We have some tweaks that could be added for a 1.0.0, but perhaps we >> get >> >> an >> >>> 1.0.0-RC1 out ASAP, and then can improve that with further RCs? >> >>> >> >>> Blockers for an initial RC right now might be >> >>> 1. Do we know the ASF process for releasing the VSIX and zip to >> GitHub? >> >>> 2. Add the actions CI back in for automated release from a tag. >> >>> 3. Items 5-7 of Mike's original list ? >> >>> >> >>> Sound right? >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 10:23 AM Mike Beckerle <mbecke...@apache.org> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> +1 on summary + linking to older issue >> >>>> >> >>>> On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 10:15 AM Steve Lawrence <slawre...@apache.org >> > >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> +1 sounds good to me >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On 10/7/21 10:14 AM, John Wass wrote: >> >>>>>> Sounds good. I will do that and start to move issues over. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Some of these issues have multiple posts by multiple authors and it >> >>>> will >> >>>>> be >> >>>>>> hard to capture all that context in the new repo. I'm thinking of >> >>>>>> generating a summary and then adding a link to the archived issue. >> >>> Any >> >>>>>> objections there? >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 5:01 PM Mike Beckerle <mbecke...@apache.org >> >>> >> >>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> No problem. Go ahead. That's a sensible last commit on that repo. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 5:00 PM John Wass <jwa...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Will there be any problem with updating the readme in the old >> >> repo >> >>> to >> >>>>>>> note >> >>>>>>>> that it is relocated? >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 4:20 PM John Wass <jwa...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Steps 1-7 sound good to me. Some thoughts >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> 1) push to https://github.com/apache/daffodil-vscode >> >> repository. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Who is going to push the code? >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> 2) move over github issues to the new repo issues >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> It doesn't look like the "transfer issue" function works across >> >>>> orgs. >> >>>>>>> So >> >>>>>>>>> a manual move it shall be. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> 3) move wiki pages/doc to the github wiki associated with the >> >> new >> >>>>>>>>> repository >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Same thing, manual copy. Not as significant as issue moving. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> 4) archive the old original github repo (for posterity). >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Concur. I'd say this happens first to ensure nothing drifts >> >> while >> >>> we >> >>>>> are >> >>>>>>>>> moving things around. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 10:41 AM Mike Beckerle < >> >>> mbecke...@apache.org >> >>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> With the IP-clearance now complete, next steps (I think) are: >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> 1) push to https://github.com/apache/daffodil-vscode >> >> repository. >> >>>>>>>>>> I believe the existing repo main branch should be pushed here >> >> as >> >>>> is, >> >>>>>>>>>> i.e., >> >>>>>>>>>> no need to squash anything. >> >>>>>>>>>> Note the main branch is named "main", not master. >> >>>>>>>>>> Tag it at the current point on the main branch. (suggest tag >> >> name >> >>>>>>>>>> apache-ip-clearance ? or happy-apache-birthday ?) >> >>>>>>>>>> 2) move over github issues to the new repo issues >> >>>>>>>>>> 3) move wiki pages/doc to the github wiki associated with the >> >> new >> >>>>>>>>>> repository >> >>>>>>>>>> 4) archive the old original github repo (for posterity). >> >>>>>>>>>> 5) update main daffodil-site pages to mention/highlight the new >> >>>>> vscode >> >>>>>>>>>> debugger and link to its issues and wiki. >> >>>>>>>>>> 6) whatever else I forgot >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> and.... >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> 7) start planning for release 1.0.0. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> I am not sure what additional things are needed in order to >> >> meet >> >>>>> Apache >> >>>>>>>>>> criteria for release, given the vscode marketplace as a means >> >> of >> >>>>>>>>>> distribution. Perhaps we don't need to solve that yet? >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> I think we covered almost everything else during the >> >> IP-clearance >> >>>>>>>>>> process. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> If there are things, let's discuss them here on the dev list. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >>
