For Jar files both should be generally identical, no matter what they are built
with however Maven stores the pom.xml and the property values it used in
"META-DATA/maven/..." ... However Maven doesn't really care about them as long
as it gets the jar and a matching pom file.
For SWF/SWC the output should be identical.
So I really don't understand why we keep on getting back here ...
Chris
Am 31.03.20, 19:25 schrieb "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev>:
> I thought we had general consensus to use Ant to build the Ant artifacts
and Maven to build the Maven artifacts
Seeing this distinction mentioned over and over in this discussion, I
wonder if everyone actually has the same understanding on what exactly
counts as an "Ant artifact" and what counts as a "Maven artifact". I may be
wrong, but this might be part of why the discussion keeps going around in
circles.
--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:13 AM Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Chris wants to put the verification of the build.xml files on the voters.
> I disagree. The RM should do the verification before putting the RC up
for
> vote. Maybe that's the issue we have to vote on. Running "ant release"
is
> a simple test of the build.xml files. It will be even better the day we
> get the Maven distribution to match it.
>
> I thought we had general consensus to use Ant to build the Ant artifacts
> and Maven to build the Maven artifacts. Doing so tests that the build.xml
> files and pom.xml files are working. It does not make sense to not run
> tests we have available in order to make the RM's job take less time and
> the voter's job take more time.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 3/31/20, 10:05 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ideally it wouldn't matter if you build it with Ant or Maven.
>
> As I understand it, the scenario is that a developer makes a change
> and needs to package that change into a zip in order to see it in his/her
> IDE. In order to do that s/he will need to run some Ant scripts. How does
> the RM verify that these scripts work? I may be missing something…
>
>
> Am 31.03.20, 17:59 schrieb "Yishay Weiss" <yishayj...@hotmail.com>:
>
>
> > - 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%7Cdab1739df18d47111a1208d7d595b752%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212711318551982&sdata=Q5EqiuL89VNvHvjftVtZJnevo3sBXOMMSyN0sM7Kk%2B8%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%7Cdab1739df18d47111a1208d7d595b752%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212711318551982&sdata=HhomEKpXL7Beq9V7n%2FJOCB2RUezsZIvhBL6NAnzd%2BPs%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%7Cdab1739df18d47111a1208d7d595b752%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212711318551982&sdata=WZihCXEgKLwbdOHA8d3IaJMaeogXU3s9jI0wtsCP6WM%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%7Cdab1739df18d47111a1208d7d595b752%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212711318551982&sdata=VrBVT9%2FgUa9H3L9EdlFi60K6apxF4asAc3NONAMmgLk%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> From: Christofer Dutz<mailto:christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 7:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Coming back to collect requirements for the
> release process
>
>
> There is a difference between something working and being
> bit-identical.
>
> But regarding seeing your changes in any IDE. Ideally it wouldn't
> matter if you build it with Ant or Maven.
> Right now the Maven distribution seems to work in the IDEs it was
> tested with ... so ... yes.
>
> So if you develop, it shouldn't matter if you build with Ant or Maven
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 31.03.20, 17:59 schrieb "Yishay Weiss" <yishayj...@hotmail.com>:
>
>
> > - 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%7Cdab1739df18d47111a1208d7d595b752%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212711318551982&sdata=Q5EqiuL89VNvHvjftVtZJnevo3sBXOMMSyN0sM7Kk%2B8%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%7Cdab1739df18d47111a1208d7d595b752%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212711318551982&sdata=HhomEKpXL7Beq9V7n%2FJOCB2RUezsZIvhBL6NAnzd%2BPs%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%7Cdab1739df18d47111a1208d7d595b752%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212711318551982&sdata=WZihCXEgKLwbdOHA8d3IaJMaeogXU3s9jI0wtsCP6WM%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%7Cdab1739df18d47111a1208d7d595b752%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637212711318551982&sdata=VrBVT9%2FgUa9H3L9EdlFi60K6apxF4asAc3NONAMmgLk%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
