https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r6412a8240c1b690603d2ddd12b578ddfc3dc8436c24b15174a18fe74%40%3Cdev.royale.apache.org%3E
A "build" (running 'ant main') produces jars and swcs but does not create the
same output as 'ant release' which produces tar.gz and .zip files. The release
artifacts are used in many IDEs and in NPM. So, IMO, in the creating of the
release artifacts, the RM should ensure that it is possible to create the
tar.gz and .zip files via Ant, and to create at minimum, the Maven jars and
swcs and hopefully a working equivalent of the tar.gz and .zip via Maven using
the "distribution" profile. A working "distribution" profile did not exist in
the past so it is a nice-to-have and not a regression if the distribution
profile's tar.gz and .zip has problems. It would be a regression if it turned
out the build.xml files in the release could not build the tar.gz and .zip
correctly.
The only way I can think of to validate that the build.xml files will do the
right thing is to actually run "ant release" at some point in the release
process. In which case, you might as well use the resulting artifacts.
My 2 cents,
-Alex
On 3/30/20, 12:11 PM, "Yishay Weiss" <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ant artifacts are reproducible by running the Ant scripts. Again, the
scenario is that if an Ant user wants to try a local change in an IDE or NPM we
want >to ensure that they can run the Ant "release" target and get the tar.gz
or .zip they need.
“Again” suggests you’ve already given an explanation, but I couldn’t find
it. Can you expand on this scenario? If this is the only difference you and
Chris have I think it’s worth focusing on it.
On 3/30/20, 2:17 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote:
Hi Chris,
thanks. I revise and for me is totally fine :)
El lun., 30 mar. 2020 a las 9:33, Harbs (<harbs.li...@gmail.com>)
escribió:
> Thanks for that. The Google Doc is a great initiative!
>
> Harbs
>
> > On Mar 30, 2020, at 10:26 AM, Christofer Dutz
<christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > as the discussion has gone back to: “the release should be as in
the 13
> steps”, I’d like to re-focus on the probably more important parts:
> >
> > I already started writing up a list of requirements and options to
> achieve them:
> >
>
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1kMlNfgVVAtTBNb57Qe88-d0vbM-HdohgQFqWCBr-cAg%2Fedit%23&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb9e4d4ca20864eabf7a608d7d4de296d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637211922954783626&sdata=wykDg%2FGYXXpYQk2RE2Und%2BxZ7Qzr7lDXhInGuhgA4Xc%3D&reserved=0
> <
>
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1kMlNfgVVAtTBNb57Qe88-d0vbM-HdohgQFqWCBr-cAg%2Fedit&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb9e4d4ca20864eabf7a608d7d4de296d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637211922954793626&sdata=DsQpQRNkDnek03Iulknv2TFkE3fIRtdN%2BdB8WsaUyII%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > Feel free to continue.
> >
> > Will not participate in the other discussion as it’s showing a
typical
> pattern of progressional-degradation, and continuing that thread will
not
> bring the project forward.
> >
> > Chris
> >
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb9e4d4ca20864eabf7a608d7d4de296d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637211922954793626&sdata=sZswsDv3TrjgbiXy0uIZ1RiysV91lpeaFMZvEFRR0lg%3D&reserved=0
