Let's make it happen :) wt., 31 mar 2020 o 18:55 Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> napisał(a):
> Well you could make the verification part of the verification ... > > As I mentioned ... I am suggesting to create a release with Ant OR Maven > (not require both) and then make the validation part of the release > verification process. > > Chris > > > > Am 31.03.20, 18:23 schrieb "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>: > > Let me try another way: There are.a lot of build.xml files that are > intended to create a tar.gz and .zip (that the Maven distribution will > hopefully binary match someday if not already). How can the RM, in the > creation of the release candidates, verify that the build.xml files will > produce the .tar.gz and .zip so our Ant users will not run into issues with > those build.xml files? > > The way we do it now is to run 'ant release" and actually distribute > the results. What other ways are there to verify the build.xml files? > > -Alex > > On 3/31/20, 8:59 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > - Some tooling could be added to validate artifacts created by > any form of distribution with ones built by Ant > > If I understand Alex’s concern correctly he wants Ant users to see > their Royale changes in any IDE. Is this tooling supposed to help with that? > > > Am 31.03.20, 07:48 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" < > piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>: > > Hi Chris, > > Last comment from Alex explain exactly what release process > has to do > additional. - Did your document explanation included that > step? Reading it > I feel it includes, but I would like to make sure. > > Thanks, > Piotr > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020, 6:34 AM Alex Harui > <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.apache.org%2Fthread.html%2Fr6412a8240c1b690603d2ddd12b578ddfc3dc8436c24b15174a18fe74%2540%253Cdev.royale.apache.org%253E&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C571ece52cc4f47b3f11008d7d58c6cc5%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212671413184429&sdata=VVf5G0bB5LlWKOSGnaZhkdC4eNaaT%2FazPs5gd9mQImg%3D&reserved=0 > > > > 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%7C571ece52cc4f47b3f11008d7d58c6cc5%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212671413184429&sdata=RQnJ3Ky5N6SPGpPNBMxMnBVfxsPx%2FhXhzrz7GZ%2FRbQI%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%7C571ece52cc4f47b3f11008d7d58c6cc5%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212671413194422&sdata=XO1h3oYto2wlD%2Bv8oVSozBEXl96Ryvf3OlCqNv2Ubx4%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%7C571ece52cc4f47b3f11008d7d58c6cc5%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212671413194422&sdata=RmPHhQh0xxwwk6V86k%2FkVxQCch2DrjNgnE9nOnraO74%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Piotr Zarzycki Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
