Hi Alex,
Argh ... sorry for that ... what I meant was actually: "The release artifacts
should be usable by X because Y" but missed writing down the rest ...
I agree without that is doesn't make sense. What I wanted to lay emphasis on is
to rather provide the reasoning behind the "must" or "should".
Chris
Am 21.03.20, 16:08 schrieb "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>:
That's a good starting point, but I don't like the "should". I think it is
a "must", otherwise, we can release broken functionality.
The Ant release artifacts must be reproducible by Ant and the Maven release
artifacts must be reproducible by Maven. It isn't sufficient to say that the
"build" works in the released sources. Release artifacts are more than just
the build output. Ant or Maven users may need to test a binary release
artifacts/package with their local changes, not just the individual jars/swcs.
To be picky, only the Maven artifacts need to be usable by Maven, and only
the Ant artifacts need to be usable by Ant, although I'm assuming that's what
you meant.
HTH,
-Alex
On 3/21/20, 2:20 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote:
Hi all,
I would like to use this thread to collect some requirements for the
release process.
Also would I like to ask you not to formulate things like “The release
artifacts must be built with X” but rather “The release artifacts should be
usable by X” cause that’s what really matters. I hope you get what I mean.
So far I have this:
* The release artifacts should be usable by Maven
* The release artifacts should be usable by Ant
* The release should include tests, which ensure the correct
function of the royale-maven-plugin
* The release should include tests which ensure the correct
function of the Ant targets
* It should be possible to verify a release by comparing it’s
binary artifacts for equality (reproducible builds)
* It should be ensured a release candidate builds correctly with
Ant and with Maven
* The release process should ideally work on any machine
Did I miss something?
Chris
