You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@royale.apache.org by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org> on 2020/04/01 09:39:59 UTC
[Propossal] Choose how to do a release
Hi All,
after many days of going in circles here's a propossal thread as other PMCs
requested and will be followed by a Vote thread.
So the proposal is the following:
Apache Royale needs a reliable, easy process to release often. We still
don't have that, so we propose to release as the rest of Apache projects do
[1] by using a tested Maven process [2].
There's as well another current way [3] that RMs can choose as well. So use
[2] or [3] depending on what works for them better.
About [2] we tested full release and the output did work in any tested IDE
(Moonshine and VSCode). The source-bundles compiled without any issues in
Ant and Maven and the Maven artifacts worked perfectly in a test project.
So technically speaking seems ready to go (although as worked in real could
expect some little changes).
About [3], it was the system used to release 0.9.6, but trying to do 0.9.7
was not possible by some volunteers for that reason some of us want more
options and propose [2].
But we want [3] continue to be an option for all volunteers that want to
investigate and invest time on it.
Main ponts:
1.- One process (taking about [2] and [3]) should not be over the other.
2.- It's up to the RM to choose one or the other, whatever he wants to do
to get the release in best conditions and the work done faster, the better,
and do the release with that choose.
3.- Release process can't block enhancements to build process, since more
changes in the future are expected in build systems (even add more), so
it's up to people choosing [2] or [3] invest the time to adapt to new
changes, as any other thing in an ASF project "not to expect others do it
for you, do yourself".
The objective is not block any of the two process and releases doing with
one or the other will be valid and could be voted as official Apache Royale
releases.
So will request your vote to any Apache Royale PMC, Commiter and user in
this list.
PMCs are binding votes.
Thanks
Carlos
[1] https://twitter.com/ChristoferDutz/status/1240219399551934473
[2]
https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki/Release-Manager-(already-tested)
[3] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki/Release-Manager-Notes
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: [Propossal] Choose how to do a release
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi,
ok perfect :)
Thanks
El mié., 1 abr. 2020 a las 13:41, Harbs (<ha...@gmail.com>) escribió:
> To be clear, I was not talking about doing the current release. I was
> talking about 0.9.8 (or whatever we’ll call it)
>
> > On Apr 1, 2020, at 2:36 PM, Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > About timing. I think we need to release as soon as possible. May is so
> far
> > away and people is requesting us to do a release now. If we can't release
> > with the old process that's a clear sign that something is not ok and we
> > need more options.
> >
> > About you to be the RM, great too, but I think at this moment the slots
> to
> > be RM are taken (it's between Me and Chris or Alex and Yishay, if they
> can
> > make CI Server to work as expected), and I think you can do the next one.
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: [Propossal] Choose how to do a release
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
To be clear, I was not talking about doing the current release. I was talking about 0.9.8 (or whatever we’ll call it)
> On Apr 1, 2020, at 2:36 PM, Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> About timing. I think we need to release as soon as possible. May is so far
> away and people is requesting us to do a release now. If we can't release
> with the old process that's a clear sign that something is not ok and we
> need more options.
>
> About you to be the RM, great too, but I think at this moment the slots to
> be RM are taken (it's between Me and Chris or Alex and Yishay, if they can
> make CI Server to work as expected), and I think you can do the next one.
Re: [Propossal] Choose how to do a release
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi again Harbs,
catching up with your latest email
El mié., 1 abr. 2020 a las 12:10, Harbs (<ha...@gmail.com>) escribió:
> FWIW, I’m also willing to work on the following release (let’s say
> sometime in May?) so I can better understand everything.
>
For me it will be perfect, as most of you can get your hands dirty, you can
have more arguments and could choose to use one process or the other.
That's important. As said before, for me the important thing is no one
could throw away the other, since that will be very, very bad for this
project.
About timing. I think we need to release as soon as possible. May is so far
away and people is requesting us to do a release now. If we can't release
with the old process that's a clear sign that something is not ok and we
need more options.
About you to be the RM, great too, but I think at this moment the slots to
be RM are taken (it's between Me and Chris or Alex and Yishay, if they can
make CI Server to work as expected), and I think you can do the next one.
> I’d also like to speak to Alex on the phone before I come to an opinion
> here because I feel like some of the finer points have been getting lost in
> email.
>
> I appreciate all the work you and Chris have been doing to try to improve
> the release process.
>
Many thanks for you words Harbs, I hope you can catch with all the info and
get a good knowledge of all that is involved
: )
Carlos
>
> Thanks,
> Harbs
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>
>
>
Re: [Propossal] Choose how to do a release
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
FWIW, I’m also willing to work on the following release (let’s say sometime in May?) so I can better understand everything.
I’d also like to speak to Alex on the phone before I come to an opinion here because I feel like some of the finer points have been getting lost in email.
I appreciate all the work you and Chris have been doing to try to improve the release process.
Thanks,
Harbs
> On Apr 1, 2020, at 12:50 PM, Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Before we vote on something like this, I need to understand how it’ll work and what the ramifications would be. Having two different release processes sounds like it’ll make things worse instead of better.
>
> Life has been a bit hectic lately (as I imagine it has been for many), and I don’t have clear in my head some of the finer points of the release process.
>
> I was hoping Yishay would do the next release which would give me an opportunity to discuss with him how it went using the current process. (When we can finally spend some face to face time…) ;-)
>
> I think we’re all in agreement that we want the release process to be easier, but I’m not sure it’s totally clear to all of us how to best go about that.
>
> Please cancel the vote thread because I think you “jumped the gun” on that.
>
> My $0.02,
> Harbs
>
>> On Apr 1, 2020, at 12:39 PM, Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> after many days of going in circles here's a propossal thread as other PMCs
>> requested and will be followed by a Vote thread.
>>
>> So the proposal is the following:
>>
>> Apache Royale needs a reliable, easy process to release often. We still
>> don't have that, so we propose to release as the rest of Apache projects do
>> [1] by using a tested Maven process [2].
>>
>> There's as well another current way [3] that RMs can choose as well. So use
>> [2] or [3] depending on what works for them better.
>>
>> About [2] we tested full release and the output did work in any tested IDE
>> (Moonshine and VSCode). The source-bundles compiled without any issues in
>> Ant and Maven and the Maven artifacts worked perfectly in a test project.
>> So technically speaking seems ready to go (although as worked in real could
>> expect some little changes).
>>
>> About [3], it was the system used to release 0.9.6, but trying to do 0.9.7
>> was not possible by some volunteers for that reason some of us want more
>> options and propose [2].
>>
>> But we want [3] continue to be an option for all volunteers that want to
>> investigate and invest time on it.
>>
>> Main ponts:
>>
>> 1.- One process (taking about [2] and [3]) should not be over the other.
>> 2.- It's up to the RM to choose one or the other, whatever he wants to do
>> to get the release in best conditions and the work done faster, the better,
>> and do the release with that choose.
>> 3.- Release process can't block enhancements to build process, since more
>> changes in the future are expected in build systems (even add more), so
>> it's up to people choosing [2] or [3] invest the time to adapt to new
>> changes, as any other thing in an ASF project "not to expect others do it
>> for you, do yourself".
>>
>> The objective is not block any of the two process and releases doing with
>> one or the other will be valid and could be voted as official Apache Royale
>> releases.
>>
>> So will request your vote to any Apache Royale PMC, Commiter and user in
>> this list.
>>
>> PMCs are binding votes.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Carlos
>>
>>
>> [1] https://twitter.com/ChristoferDutz/status/1240219399551934473
>> [2]
>> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki/Release-Manager-(already-tested)
>> [3] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki/Release-Manager-Notes
>>
>> --
>> Carlos Rovira
>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
Re: [Propossal] Choose how to do a release
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi Harbs,
hope you're well in this time of lockdown and will not be having any issues
to the current problems outside :).
El mié., 1 abr. 2020 a las 11:50, Harbs (<ha...@gmail.com>) escribió:
> Before we vote on something like this, I need to understand how it’ll work
> and what the ramifications would be. Having two different release processes
> sounds like it’ll make things worse instead of better.
>
we talked a lot past weeks. I think you have all the clues in the past
threads. Several info there but is worth reading. As well you can ask us
here so we can help you to get up to date and understand, so you can get
more involved lately.
About having different process I think is not a problem, I think is the
opposite :)
Just think that is not about the what process an RM use is about the
release. If you work best with CI Server, go ahead, If I can do in my
machine with just Maven...goof too, right?
People verifying the release are not affected at all since need to check
the release as always (verifying sign, verify hashes, downloading sources,
building from sources and testing in projects, and approve release or not).
So no differences for anyone right? just good things for the RMs.
>
> Life has been a bit hectic lately (as I imagine it has been for many), and
> I don’t have clear in my head some of the finer points of the release
> process.
>
Yes, life was turning strange for all of us, just trying to go as we can
:). But I think you need to follow up with all the threads (sorry but don't
think there's other way). We can support you on any question you have
>
> I was hoping Yishay would do the next release which would give me an
> opportunity to discuss with him how it went using the current process.
> (When we can finally spend some face to face time…) ;-)
>
Yes. and I offer that many times. But maybe the problem is he has not
sufficient time to be RM. Don't know.
but this thread is not for that. This thread is to get clear if people does
not want a normal maven release process and just want CI Server step.
If people express that, it's clear others like Yishay or you will need to
be RMs (since I have clear that I tried to fight with CI server and have to
left in step 7)
So its still a chance that Yishay can do work over CI Steps, but I think we
should first see if we can "live together" or not. For me that's the most
important. Others things goes then.
>
> I think we’re all in agreement that we want the release process to be
> easier, but I’m not sure it’s totally clear to all of us how to best go
> about that.
>
One thing is clear, Chris and I invested many time in CI Server and
couldn't work over it. Even we found things was broken. Things that are
not about any change we did, just things that seems worked for Alex in this
timezone. So I have clear that at least for me old release process is not
easier at all, and is not working for me, but the maven one is working and
is more easy as we already commented on other threads.
I think some of us want one way and others wants another. For me is ok
always people that wants a particular way doesn't compel others to stick
with his way.
For me that would be a sign that this project has a problem far beyond
of a release process, and would need to think after what to do from that
point, but that will be just me :).
>
> Please cancel the vote thread because I think you “jumped the gun” on that.
>
Maybe you didn't read the latest threads fully. I didn't "jumped the gun"
myself. Piotr requested first in the other thread, and Then Yishay
expressed in other thread the discussion will turn into to a vote. Please
check the others thread first. After that, and thinking on it, I think is
the best to find a solution and stop this circles going over and over, so
I'm too for a vote.
So for that reason I did this thread. 3 PMCs requested a vote. We can
discuss, but don't think 1 PMC requesting a cancel is a good way to go for
an Apache project, unless I'm missing something, I think more people should
want to ask for cancelation. But as I said, I think that will not be good
for this project.
Is that right for you ?
Thanks and hope you're well :)
Carlos
>
> My $0.02,
> Harbs
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>
>
>
Re: [Propossal] Choose how to do a release
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
Before we vote on something like this, I need to understand how it’ll work and what the ramifications would be. Having two different release processes sounds like it’ll make things worse instead of better.
Life has been a bit hectic lately (as I imagine it has been for many), and I don’t have clear in my head some of the finer points of the release process.
I was hoping Yishay would do the next release which would give me an opportunity to discuss with him how it went using the current process. (When we can finally spend some face to face time…) ;-)
I think we’re all in agreement that we want the release process to be easier, but I’m not sure it’s totally clear to all of us how to best go about that.
Please cancel the vote thread because I think you “jumped the gun” on that.
My $0.02,
Harbs
> On Apr 1, 2020, at 12:39 PM, Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> after many days of going in circles here's a propossal thread as other PMCs
> requested and will be followed by a Vote thread.
>
> So the proposal is the following:
>
> Apache Royale needs a reliable, easy process to release often. We still
> don't have that, so we propose to release as the rest of Apache projects do
> [1] by using a tested Maven process [2].
>
> There's as well another current way [3] that RMs can choose as well. So use
> [2] or [3] depending on what works for them better.
>
> About [2] we tested full release and the output did work in any tested IDE
> (Moonshine and VSCode). The source-bundles compiled without any issues in
> Ant and Maven and the Maven artifacts worked perfectly in a test project.
> So technically speaking seems ready to go (although as worked in real could
> expect some little changes).
>
> About [3], it was the system used to release 0.9.6, but trying to do 0.9.7
> was not possible by some volunteers for that reason some of us want more
> options and propose [2].
>
> But we want [3] continue to be an option for all volunteers that want to
> investigate and invest time on it.
>
> Main ponts:
>
> 1.- One process (taking about [2] and [3]) should not be over the other.
> 2.- It's up to the RM to choose one or the other, whatever he wants to do
> to get the release in best conditions and the work done faster, the better,
> and do the release with that choose.
> 3.- Release process can't block enhancements to build process, since more
> changes in the future are expected in build systems (even add more), so
> it's up to people choosing [2] or [3] invest the time to adapt to new
> changes, as any other thing in an ASF project "not to expect others do it
> for you, do yourself".
>
> The objective is not block any of the two process and releases doing with
> one or the other will be valid and could be voted as official Apache Royale
> releases.
>
> So will request your vote to any Apache Royale PMC, Commiter and user in
> this list.
>
> PMCs are binding votes.
>
> Thanks
>
> Carlos
>
>
> [1] https://twitter.com/ChristoferDutz/status/1240219399551934473
> [2]
> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki/Release-Manager-(already-tested)
> [3] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki/Release-Manager-Notes
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: [Propossal] Choose how to do a release
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
Carlos. This is hopefully my last email on this topic until this evening when I can get back to it.
The 3 points are not disagreed upon at the high-level they are stated at. What is disagreed is what the technical impiications of that are. I am going to take the time to try to carefully and accurately write a summary of the actual points of disagreement.
Thanks,
-Alex
On 4/1/20, 11:35 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
Hi Alex,
propossal at a glance is:
1.- One process should not be over the other.
2.- It's up to the RM to choose one or the other.
3.- Release process can't block enhancements to build process
We're not voting technical details. It's about freedom. We're voting that
RM can use whatever way is available that produces a valid release to Vote.
This is just what Apache process requires.
IOW, since I already said that I'm not to use CI Server due to my
experience, even if you get it to work. I want to know if anyone here could
have a problem if they want to release with other method than CI Server.
Technical improvements to each process can be done in other threads without
problems.
El mié., 1 abr. 2020 a las 20:19, Alex Harui (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
escribió:
> IMO, the choices in the proposal are not the ones that need to be decided
> by vote, or really at all.
>
> The proposal is not including a key technical detail and may cause people
> to vote in a way that they wouldn't if they understood the key technical
> pieces.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 4/1/20, 11:10 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> ok thanks,
>
> about cancelling vote. Piotr, Yishay and I thought it was time to vote.
> Harbs expressed to cancel, but seems was due to still couldn't catch
> with
> all the info we generated this weeks.
> You want to cancel to discuss the technical solution about process
> [2]. But
> this Vote thread is not about that. I think we already proved is a
> valid
> process and generates a valid release, and I'm open to continue
> updating
> and improving it as usual. The vote is about choices and not impose
> just
> one method, that's about what I'm worried, I think maybe we don't need
> to
> vote if we all are in the boat, and since we didn't vote at any point
> in
> our history about just use one CI Server as unique option for
> releases. If
> we are ok on that I think we can cancel this vote.
>
> thanks
>
>
>
> El mié., 1 abr. 2020 a las 18:53, Alex Harui (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> >)
> escribió:
>
> > Worked.
> >
> > On 4/1/20, 9:52 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > worked?
> > thanks
> >
> > El mié., 1 abr. 2020 a las 18:46, Alex Harui
> (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> > >)
> > escribió:
> >
> > > OK, thanks.
> > >
> > > On 4/1/20, 9:39 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi new link for [2]
> > >
> > > let's see if that works
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [2]
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FNew-Release-Manager&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb60271fda01d4cbccf4a08d7d66b6370%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213629026849650&sdata=4ptqx%2BeO3Bs1htl%2FwOZazm6l9YKie5YTQS4gA1N725A%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb60271fda01d4cbccf4a08d7d66b6370%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213629026849650&sdata=Rzu9YWpUBfbWZsisa0d%2BJ5XcoA3ptei1V8ugCZ5%2FrtQ%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb60271fda01d4cbccf4a08d7d66b6370%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213629026849650&sdata=Rzu9YWpUBfbWZsisa0d%2BJ5XcoA3ptei1V8ugCZ5%2FrtQ%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb60271fda01d4cbccf4a08d7d66b6370%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213629026849650&sdata=Rzu9YWpUBfbWZsisa0d%2BJ5XcoA3ptei1V8ugCZ5%2FrtQ%3D&reserved=0
Re: [Propossal] Choose how to do a release
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi Alex,
propossal at a glance is:
1.- One process should not be over the other.
2.- It's up to the RM to choose one or the other.
3.- Release process can't block enhancements to build process
We're not voting technical details. It's about freedom. We're voting that
RM can use whatever way is available that produces a valid release to Vote.
This is just what Apache process requires.
IOW, since I already said that I'm not to use CI Server due to my
experience, even if you get it to work. I want to know if anyone here could
have a problem if they want to release with other method than CI Server.
Technical improvements to each process can be done in other threads without
problems.
El mié., 1 abr. 2020 a las 20:19, Alex Harui (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
escribió:
> IMO, the choices in the proposal are not the ones that need to be decided
> by vote, or really at all.
>
> The proposal is not including a key technical detail and may cause people
> to vote in a way that they wouldn't if they understood the key technical
> pieces.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 4/1/20, 11:10 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> ok thanks,
>
> about cancelling vote. Piotr, Yishay and I thought it was time to vote.
> Harbs expressed to cancel, but seems was due to still couldn't catch
> with
> all the info we generated this weeks.
> You want to cancel to discuss the technical solution about process
> [2]. But
> this Vote thread is not about that. I think we already proved is a
> valid
> process and generates a valid release, and I'm open to continue
> updating
> and improving it as usual. The vote is about choices and not impose
> just
> one method, that's about what I'm worried, I think maybe we don't need
> to
> vote if we all are in the boat, and since we didn't vote at any point
> in
> our history about just use one CI Server as unique option for
> releases. If
> we are ok on that I think we can cancel this vote.
>
> thanks
>
>
>
> El mié., 1 abr. 2020 a las 18:53, Alex Harui (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> >)
> escribió:
>
> > Worked.
> >
> > On 4/1/20, 9:52 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > worked?
> > thanks
> >
> > El mié., 1 abr. 2020 a las 18:46, Alex Harui
> (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> > >)
> > escribió:
> >
> > > OK, thanks.
> > >
> > > On 4/1/20, 9:39 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi new link for [2]
> > >
> > > let's see if that works
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [2]
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FNew-Release-Manager&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfec0cd8f8334431a777608d7d667fe3e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213614446591239&sdata=mLVmFkuitptLPR0hqM9XniePJnKB9UpYTadNFJh39Uk%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfec0cd8f8334431a777608d7d667fe3e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213614446591239&sdata=SJH7tSQiXqzAVnXawcyWI%2FegpxyBiY3%2FkA%2BxFxsJUFg%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfec0cd8f8334431a777608d7d667fe3e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213614446591239&sdata=SJH7tSQiXqzAVnXawcyWI%2FegpxyBiY3%2FkA%2BxFxsJUFg%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: [Propossal] Choose how to do a release
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
IMO, the choices in the proposal are not the ones that need to be decided by vote, or really at all.
The proposal is not including a key technical detail and may cause people to vote in a way that they wouldn't if they understood the key technical pieces.
-Alex
On 4/1/20, 11:10 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
ok thanks,
about cancelling vote. Piotr, Yishay and I thought it was time to vote.
Harbs expressed to cancel, but seems was due to still couldn't catch with
all the info we generated this weeks.
You want to cancel to discuss the technical solution about process [2]. But
this Vote thread is not about that. I think we already proved is a valid
process and generates a valid release, and I'm open to continue updating
and improving it as usual. The vote is about choices and not impose just
one method, that's about what I'm worried, I think maybe we don't need to
vote if we all are in the boat, and since we didn't vote at any point in
our history about just use one CI Server as unique option for releases. If
we are ok on that I think we can cancel this vote.
thanks
El mié., 1 abr. 2020 a las 18:53, Alex Harui (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
escribió:
> Worked.
>
> On 4/1/20, 9:52 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> worked?
> thanks
>
> El mié., 1 abr. 2020 a las 18:46, Alex Harui (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> >)
> escribió:
>
> > OK, thanks.
> >
> > On 4/1/20, 9:39 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi new link for [2]
> >
> > let's see if that works
> >
> >
> >
> > [2]
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FNew-Release-Manager&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfec0cd8f8334431a777608d7d667fe3e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213614446591239&sdata=mLVmFkuitptLPR0hqM9XniePJnKB9UpYTadNFJh39Uk%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfec0cd8f8334431a777608d7d667fe3e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213614446591239&sdata=SJH7tSQiXqzAVnXawcyWI%2FegpxyBiY3%2FkA%2BxFxsJUFg%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfec0cd8f8334431a777608d7d667fe3e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213614446591239&sdata=SJH7tSQiXqzAVnXawcyWI%2FegpxyBiY3%2FkA%2BxFxsJUFg%3D&reserved=0
Re: [Propossal] Choose how to do a release
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
ok thanks,
about cancelling vote. Piotr, Yishay and I thought it was time to vote.
Harbs expressed to cancel, but seems was due to still couldn't catch with
all the info we generated this weeks.
You want to cancel to discuss the technical solution about process [2]. But
this Vote thread is not about that. I think we already proved is a valid
process and generates a valid release, and I'm open to continue updating
and improving it as usual. The vote is about choices and not impose just
one method, that's about what I'm worried, I think maybe we don't need to
vote if we all are in the boat, and since we didn't vote at any point in
our history about just use one CI Server as unique option for releases. If
we are ok on that I think we can cancel this vote.
thanks
El mié., 1 abr. 2020 a las 18:53, Alex Harui (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
escribió:
> Worked.
>
> On 4/1/20, 9:52 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> worked?
> thanks
>
> El mié., 1 abr. 2020 a las 18:46, Alex Harui (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> >)
> escribió:
>
> > OK, thanks.
> >
> > On 4/1/20, 9:39 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi new link for [2]
> >
> > let's see if that works
> >
> >
> >
> > [2]
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FNew-Release-Manager&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cd81c9787e418485aee3c08d7d65d0058%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213567232366556&sdata=BNg9HAIzaikKJzL1iJRPlDPkLfZDBSvRaa8KW5ojLHM%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cd81c9787e418485aee3c08d7d65d0058%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213567232366556&sdata=OnwB8r4pKt36TLvQkzdTwIvYGmvg%2FftHKYG%2FqL9rHt8%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: [Propossal] Choose how to do a release
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
Worked.
On 4/1/20, 9:52 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
worked?
thanks
El mié., 1 abr. 2020 a las 18:46, Alex Harui (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
escribió:
> OK, thanks.
>
> On 4/1/20, 9:39 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi new link for [2]
>
> let's see if that works
>
>
>
> [2]
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FNew-Release-Manager&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cd81c9787e418485aee3c08d7d65d0058%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213567232366556&sdata=BNg9HAIzaikKJzL1iJRPlDPkLfZDBSvRaa8KW5ojLHM%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cd81c9787e418485aee3c08d7d65d0058%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213567232366556&sdata=OnwB8r4pKt36TLvQkzdTwIvYGmvg%2FftHKYG%2FqL9rHt8%3D&reserved=0
Re: [Propossal] Choose how to do a release
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
worked?
thanks
El mié., 1 abr. 2020 a las 18:46, Alex Harui (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
escribió:
> OK, thanks.
>
> On 4/1/20, 9:39 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi new link for [2]
>
> let's see if that works
>
>
>
> [2]
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FNew-Release-Manager&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C086dfd55c36f480a244c08d7d65b3fea%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213559731846380&sdata=%2Fjou45JvsLqc%2BPi1jlnR0DuVt9fBDWRj3QXpQ7Mpx%2Fg%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: [Propossal] Choose how to do a release
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
OK, thanks.
On 4/1/20, 9:39 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
Hi new link for [2]
let's see if that works
[2] https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FNew-Release-Manager&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C086dfd55c36f480a244c08d7d65b3fea%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213559731846380&sdata=%2Fjou45JvsLqc%2BPi1jlnR0DuVt9fBDWRj3QXpQ7Mpx%2Fg%3D&reserved=0
Re: [Propossal] Choose how to do a release
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi new link for [2]
let's see if that works
[2] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki/New-Release-Manager
Re: [Propossal] Choose how to do a release
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi Alex,
I tried the link and is working for me, so don't what we can do. Maybe I
can try to rename the page to something simpler. Going to try
El mié., 1 abr. 2020 a las 18:17, Alex Harui (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
escribió:
> IMO, this proposal is too high-level and misses the key technical aspect
> of the discussion.
>
> But first, for me, link [2] goes to a blank page. Is it working for
> others? Once I get it working for me, I recommend we end this thread,
> cancel the vote thread and I will try to use link [2] to provide a summary
> of the technical discussion in another thread.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> On 4/1/20, 2:40 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> after many days of going in circles here's a propossal thread as other
> PMCs
> requested and will be followed by a Vote thread.
>
> So the proposal is the following:
>
> Apache Royale needs a reliable, easy process to release often. We still
> don't have that, so we propose to release as the rest of Apache
> projects do
> [1] by using a tested Maven process [2].
>
> There's as well another current way [3] that RMs can choose as well.
> So use
> [2] or [3] depending on what works for them better.
>
> About [2] we tested full release and the output did work in any
> tested IDE
> (Moonshine and VSCode). The source-bundles compiled without any issues
> in
> Ant and Maven and the Maven artifacts worked perfectly in a test
> project.
> So technically speaking seems ready to go (although as worked in real
> could
> expect some little changes).
>
> About [3], it was the system used to release 0.9.6, but trying to do
> 0.9.7
> was not possible by some volunteers for that reason some of us want
> more
> options and propose [2].
>
> But we want [3] continue to be an option for all volunteers that want
> to
> investigate and invest time on it.
>
> Main ponts:
>
> 1.- One process (taking about [2] and [3]) should not be over the
> other.
> 2.- It's up to the RM to choose one or the other, whatever he wants to
> do
> to get the release in best conditions and the work done faster, the
> better,
> and do the release with that choose.
> 3.- Release process can't block enhancements to build process, since
> more
> changes in the future are expected in build systems (even add more), so
> it's up to people choosing [2] or [3] invest the time to adapt to new
> changes, as any other thing in an ASF project "not to expect others do
> it
> for you, do yourself".
>
> The objective is not block any of the two process and releases doing
> with
> one or the other will be valid and could be voted as official Apache
> Royale
> releases.
>
> So will request your vote to any Apache Royale PMC, Commiter and user
> in
> this list.
>
> PMCs are binding votes.
>
> Thanks
>
> Carlos
>
>
> [1]
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FChristoferDutz%2Fstatus%2F1240219399551934473&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf1db4ac0d6d24c4bd18008d7d620af29%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213308177302922&sdata=HGFWpL5SYeOAt4zcUKnVH1DsYq0v%2FMPEZR1MuM0Dnlg%3D&reserved=0
> [2]
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FRelease-Manager-(already-tested&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf1db4ac0d6d24c4bd18008d7d620af29%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213308177302922&sdata=%2BTmNGB21fnS%2B%2Fy8wUQ9hfTJJBmy%2F3GDOvNp5jO5KWng%3D&reserved=0)
> [3]
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FRelease-Manager-Notes&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf1db4ac0d6d24c4bd18008d7d620af29%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213308177302922&sdata=9Uyz2xpVYoCAa7Ngrxlxls0NYQM7Uy5kYxMP4wyaXXY%3D&reserved=0
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf1db4ac0d6d24c4bd18008d7d620af29%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213308177302922&sdata=Lc30uUnGl2qpJwgXBRyonMPwvbkZ%2BCPV3FOUFQvJRpo%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: [Propossal] Choose how to do a release
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
IMO, this proposal is too high-level and misses the key technical aspect of the discussion.
But first, for me, link [2] goes to a blank page. Is it working for others? Once I get it working for me, I recommend we end this thread, cancel the vote thread and I will try to use link [2] to provide a summary of the technical discussion in another thread.
Thanks,
-Alex
On 4/1/20, 2:40 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
Hi All,
after many days of going in circles here's a propossal thread as other PMCs
requested and will be followed by a Vote thread.
So the proposal is the following:
Apache Royale needs a reliable, easy process to release often. We still
don't have that, so we propose to release as the rest of Apache projects do
[1] by using a tested Maven process [2].
There's as well another current way [3] that RMs can choose as well. So use
[2] or [3] depending on what works for them better.
About [2] we tested full release and the output did work in any tested IDE
(Moonshine and VSCode). The source-bundles compiled without any issues in
Ant and Maven and the Maven artifacts worked perfectly in a test project.
So technically speaking seems ready to go (although as worked in real could
expect some little changes).
About [3], it was the system used to release 0.9.6, but trying to do 0.9.7
was not possible by some volunteers for that reason some of us want more
options and propose [2].
But we want [3] continue to be an option for all volunteers that want to
investigate and invest time on it.
Main ponts:
1.- One process (taking about [2] and [3]) should not be over the other.
2.- It's up to the RM to choose one or the other, whatever he wants to do
to get the release in best conditions and the work done faster, the better,
and do the release with that choose.
3.- Release process can't block enhancements to build process, since more
changes in the future are expected in build systems (even add more), so
it's up to people choosing [2] or [3] invest the time to adapt to new
changes, as any other thing in an ASF project "not to expect others do it
for you, do yourself".
The objective is not block any of the two process and releases doing with
one or the other will be valid and could be voted as official Apache Royale
releases.
So will request your vote to any Apache Royale PMC, Commiter and user in
this list.
PMCs are binding votes.
Thanks
Carlos
[1] https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FChristoferDutz%2Fstatus%2F1240219399551934473&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf1db4ac0d6d24c4bd18008d7d620af29%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213308177302922&sdata=HGFWpL5SYeOAt4zcUKnVH1DsYq0v%2FMPEZR1MuM0Dnlg%3D&reserved=0
[2]
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FRelease-Manager-(already-tested&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf1db4ac0d6d24c4bd18008d7d620af29%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213308177302922&sdata=%2BTmNGB21fnS%2B%2Fy8wUQ9hfTJJBmy%2F3GDOvNp5jO5KWng%3D&reserved=0)
[3] https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FRelease-Manager-Notes&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf1db4ac0d6d24c4bd18008d7d620af29%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213308177302922&sdata=9Uyz2xpVYoCAa7Ngrxlxls0NYQM7Uy5kYxMP4wyaXXY%3D&reserved=0
--
Carlos Rovira
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf1db4ac0d6d24c4bd18008d7d620af29%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637213308177302922&sdata=Lc30uUnGl2qpJwgXBRyonMPwvbkZ%2BCPV3FOUFQvJRpo%3D&reserved=0