You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@royale.apache.org by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de> on 2020/05/28 07:56:43 UTC
[PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Hi all,
congrats to the successful release of 0.9.7 … it greatly simplified the last PLC4X release to have the artifacts out there in the wild.
I would really like to see Royale as the tool in my toolbox for building industrial UI applications as I sort of am not that happy with the other existing alternatives.
In order to do this I know that I have some areas of expertise I can offer to the project … Writing ActionScript and MXML code is definitely not where I can help best.
However I’m really good at Java, Maven and Apache Infrastructure. I know that development is most active in the ASJS repo but I would be happy to help on the other sides ... perhaps even help the automated testing in the ASJS repo.
I would have one proposal on how to really simplify things, but I would be hesitant to start working on this before we have consensus on this here.
It would probably involve multiple weeks of full time work in total to do it for me, but I would be happy to do it, if the project would accept it in the end and you folks would be willing to help with the parts I’m not too deep into (Ant-, NPM build adjustments). So that’s why I’m bringing this up here first. I know it might question some unwritten project rules, but I would kindly ask you to not just block the discussion and perhaps help re-evaluating why they became “project rules” and if the assumptions were correct or still apply.
The benefit would be:
* Less problems in getting set-up (just clone one repo)
* Simpler release (Only need to release one repository … no updating of version information in-between)
* Less things that can go wrong (I remember when compiler was already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest wasn’t yet … there were issues discussed on the list)
* I would use the opportunity to clean up some things in the maven build, because despite the probably common assumption … I’m not really happy with the usability of the maven build from a user’s perspective … I think there’s great room for improvement
In general I would propose to merge all 3 repositories into one. Right now the Maven build would probably work with different releases of the compiler or typedefs but from what I can see … the Ant release would probably not work without modification. So the whole idea of releasing separately seems to be more a theoretical one. I think in the history of FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done once (please correct me if I’m wrong). If there are external entities only interested in consuming parts of the project, we could build source distribution for these that only contain the parts they are interest in.
* I propose to move the artifacts needed for the build but not being part of the build (build-tools, jburg-types) into a separate repository where they can be released independently and don’t cause confusion like they are doing right now.
* Then I would like to create a new repository (Let’s call it “royale”) which contains 3 directories: compiler, typedefs and asjs (or even with the current “royale-“ prefix, I don’t really care/mind).
* Now comes the biggest block … I would need to completely rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the core of it would be also moved to the new build-tools repository. This plugin would sort of be an empty skeleton to load compiler plugins. This is needed as Maven can’t build a project where a plugin used in the project is also part of the build itself. So we couldn’t build all-in-one go without this change.
* Next step would be to add a new royale-parent pom in the new root of the project, the 3 old parents would be updated to use the new parent and a lot of duplicated configuration could be moved there, hereby greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms.
A migration plan, could be to :
* create a feature-branch in all 3 repositories
* create two new repos “royale” and “royale-build-tools” (or whatever you want to name them)
* Start with using git submodules to import the 3 branches into the new (I know submodules really suck, but they would only be needed until everything is finished)
* I would move/copy the build tools to the new repo and start working on the new maven plugin
* Then I would need to update the old compiler repo to produce something I can use as royale-maven-plugin plugins
* After that’s done I would update the typedefs to use the new plugin
* After that’s done I would update the asjs repo to use the new plugin
* Then I would add the new royale-parent pom
* After that’s done I would simplify and deduplicate the configuration
* Now I would definitely need some help with adjusting the Ant and possibly NPM build to these changes (Most of them should be profile-names and maybe directory names or paths)
* The last thing that would be required to be done now would be to remove the submodules in the “royale” repository and to import the real repos
* After this the 3 old repos could be archived
I am really looking forward to some open discussion on this.
Chris
Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Posted by Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com>.
I also wanted to say that I would be happy to take my turn as release
manager once the process has stabilized enough that it is mainly a matter
of shepherding the new release through a reliable series of steps. I spent
several years as RM for various companies, and often understood very little
of the actual code I was helping the system compile and package. I may be
the use case that shows whether the release process has become "good
enough".
Andrew
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 9:00 AM Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, of course!
>
> Chris, I am trying to move up to the website stuff that Royale users would
> want quick access to, and keep on the wiki stuff that the development team
> needs, or that is "tl:dr" details. I would be happy to work with you to get
> your material on the github wiki and to curate it so it appears where we
> all can find it. This is what I do for the Infrastructure team at ASF, who
> had a backlog of 20 years of material with nobody curating it.
>
> As you probably know, the patterns for the two wikis are very similar.
>
> Andrew
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 8:55 AM Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Chris,
>>
>> We are not using confluence at all. We are using Wiki [1], but you can
>> write document in whatever place you wanted to if you are not comfortable
>> with wiki.
>>
>> Andrew,
>>
>> Will you be willing to translate that document into our Wiki manner ?
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Piotr
>>
>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:43 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
>> napisał(a):
>>
>> > Hi Piotr,
>> >
>> > I think the Royale project could grant my user write permissions to
>> > confluence.
>> > Then I could write such a document there.
>> >
>> > But I could also do a google doc outside, if this is more convenient.
>> >
>> > Chris
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Am 28.05.20, 13:39 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com
>> >:
>> >
>> > Chris,
>> >
>> > I think I would like to be after Harbs and eventually Greg. Yes you
>> can
>> > send me a link, write a document with absolutely EVERY step which I
>> > have to
>> > do in order to get release done. Even if you think that I know some
>> > steps
>> > like signing - you can in such places point into some existing
>> > document.
>> >
>> > I would like to be able to comment on every step to confront if I
>> > really
>> > for example had to copy/paste some command or just opposite I had
>> to do
>> > much more than only copy/paste.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Piotr
>> >
>> > czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:27 Christofer Dutz <
>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
>> > napisał(a):
>> >
>> > > Hi Piotr,
>> > >
>> > > we could change the configuration to use the jgit plugin on the CI
>> > machine
>> > > and to use the default on local machines.
>> > > In that case you could do it on any machine you want (also
>> windows)
>> > >
>> > > Who does releases in which order using which tooling ... I don't
>> > really
>> > > care ...
>> > >
>> > > I'm just happy that there's a line building up of people wanting
>> to
>> > do so
>> > > and I get to use fresh releases :-)
>> > >
>> > > If there is anything I can help with ... just ping me and I'll be
>> > happy to
>> > > help.
>> > >
>> > > Chris
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Am 28.05.20, 13:18 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
>> > piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
>> > >
>> > > Hi Harbs,
>> > >
>> > > I would like to be a release manager as well, but using Chri's
>> > > implementation which as far as I know is in place. I would
>> like
>> > to use
>> > > his
>> > > mentioned 3 steps and see how much things I will have to do on
>> > my own
>> > > to
>> > > make release happen. I know that I will have to do that on
>> Mac,
>> > cause
>> > > there
>> > > some Maven/Git/Jenkins related plugin which allows use
>> Jenkins,
>> > but it
>> > > prevents me from pushing artifacts from windows.
>> > >
>> > > I have some thoughts about above proposition, but I will wait
>> > till we
>> > > all
>> > > pass trough the release process.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Piotr
>> > >
>> > > czw., 28 maj 2020 o 11:06 Christofer Dutz <
>> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
>> > > napisał(a):
>> > >
>> > > > Hi Harbs,
>> > > >
>> > > > makes sense.
>> > > >
>> > > > Chris
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
>> > > >
>> > > > Hi Chris,
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks for you work helping with the 0.9.7 release as
>> well.
>> > > >
>> > > > I’m definitely open to improving the structure and the
>> > process.
>> > > >
>> > > > My biggest hesitation is that I don’t understand the
>> > current
>> > > release
>> > > > process well enough. Until recently Alex was the only one
>> who
>> > really
>> > > > understood it. Yishay just went through the process so he
>> has
>> > a good
>> > > > understanding now. I plan on doing another release the week
>> > > following next
>> > > > (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope is that I will
>> > understand it
>> > > better
>> > > > at that point. I don’t know whether Greg Dove is willing to
>> do
>> > a
>> > > release,
>> > > > but I think it would be very valuable to get his input as
>> well.
>> > > >
>> > > > So my proposal is that we get some more of us familiar
>> > with the
>> > > what
>> > > > and the why of the current process. I want to understand
>> what
>> > was
>> > > done and
>> > > > why it was done. I don’t feel comfortable having an opinion
>> on
>> > > changing
>> > > > things until I can weigh the pros and cons. I’d like more of
>> > us to
>> > > be in
>> > > > the same position so we will be in the position of building
>> > > consensus on
>> > > > changes. The reason I hope that Greg Dove specifically does
>> a
>> > > release is
>> > > > because I feel he’s pretty neutral on technology and I think
>> > he’ll
>> > > have
>> > > > good valuable input.
>> > > >
>> > > > So here’s my proposal:
>> > > >
>> > > > 1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3 releases in rapid
>> > succession
>> > > > without making too many changes.
>> > > > 2. Let’s try and get as many of us familiar with that
>> > process as
>> > > > possible.
>> > > > 3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss the pain points and
>> > what can
>> > > be
>> > > > done to improve the structure and/or the process with pros
>> and
>> > cons.
>> > > Maybe
>> > > > your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe something else?
>> > Similar?
>> > > Don’t
>> > > > know, but I’d like to get to the point where we can have an
>> > > intelligent
>> > > > discussion on the topic with different points of view. I
>> don’t
>> > think
>> > > we’re
>> > > > quite there yet.
>> > > > 4. Carefully start implementing changes. Making big
>> > changes is
>> > > often
>> > > > disruptive and is often the cause of conflict. This is
>> nothing
>> > > specific to
>> > > > us, and there’s even accepted advice on the topic. I suggest
>> > we all
>> > > read
>> > > > and follow James Duncan Davidson's “rules for
>> > revolutionaries”[1].
>> > > >
>> > > > I appreciate having your proposed changes to ponder the
>> > next
>> > > couple of
>> > > > weeks.
>> > > >
>> > > > In the meantime, please by all means, dive into Royale
>> and
>> > create
>> > > > issues, pull requests, let us know difficulties, etc. I’ll
>> > make my
>> > > best
>> > > > effort to be as responsive as possible and help where I
>> can. If
>> > > you’re
>> > > > feeling frustration, please reach out to me on Slack.
>> > > >
>> > > > Does this make sense?
>> > > > Harbs
>> > > >
>> > > > [1]http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries <
>> > > > http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries>
>> > > >
>> > > > > On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Christofer Dutz <
>> > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Hi all,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > congrats to the successful release of 0.9.7 … it
>> greatly
>> > > simplified
>> > > > the last PLC4X release to have the artifacts out there in
>> the
>> > wild.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I would really like to see Royale as the tool in my
>> > toolbox for
>> > > > building industrial UI applications as I sort of am not that
>> > happy
>> > > with the
>> > > > other existing alternatives.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > In order to do this I know that I have some areas of
>> > expertise
>> > > I can
>> > > > offer to the project … Writing ActionScript and MXML code is
>> > > definitely not
>> > > > where I can help best.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > However I’m really good at Java, Maven and Apache
>> > > Infrastructure. I
>> > > > know that development is most active in the ASJS repo but I
>> > would be
>> > > happy
>> > > > to help on the other sides ... perhaps even help the
>> automated
>> > > testing in
>> > > > the ASJS repo.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I would have one proposal on how to really simplify
>> > things,
>> > > but I
>> > > > would be hesitant to start working on this before we have
>> > consensus
>> > > on this
>> > > > here.
>> > > > > It would probably involve multiple weeks of full time
>> > work in
>> > > total
>> > > > to do it for me, but I would be happy to do it, if the
>> project
>> > would
>> > > accept
>> > > > it in the end and you folks would be willing to help with
>> the
>> > parts
>> > > I’m not
>> > > > too deep into (Ant-, NPM build adjustments). So that’s why
>> I’m
>> > > bringing
>> > > > this up here first. I know it might question some unwritten
>> > project
>> > > rules,
>> > > > but I would kindly ask you to not just block the discussion
>> and
>> > > perhaps
>> > > > help re-evaluating why they became “project rules” and if
>> the
>> > > assumptions
>> > > > were correct or still apply.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The benefit would be:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > * Less problems in getting set-up (just clone one
>> > repo)
>> > > > > * Simpler release (Only need to release one
>> > repository … no
>> > > > updating of version information in-between)
>> > > > > * Less things that can go wrong (I remember when
>> > compiler
>> > > was
>> > > > already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest wasn’t yet … there
>> were
>> > issues
>> > > > discussed on the list)
>> > > > > * I would use the opportunity to clean up some
>> things
>> > in the
>> > > > maven build, because despite the probably common assumption
>> …
>> > I’m not
>> > > > really happy with the usability of the maven build from a
>> > user’s
>> > > > perspective … I think there’s great room for improvement
>> > > > >
>> > > > > In general I would propose to merge all 3 repositories
>> > into
>> > > one.
>> > > > Right now the Maven build would probably work with different
>> > > releases of
>> > > > the compiler or typedefs but from what I can see … the Ant
>> > release
>> > > would
>> > > > probably not work without modification. So the whole idea of
>> > > releasing
>> > > > separately seems to be more a theoretical one. I think in
>> the
>> > > history of
>> > > > FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done once (please correct
>> me
>> > if I’m
>> > > > wrong). If there are external entities only interested in
>> > consuming
>> > > parts
>> > > > of the project, we could build source distribution for these
>> > that
>> > > only
>> > > > contain the parts they are interest in.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > * I propose to move the artifacts needed for the
>> > build but
>> > > not
>> > > > being part of the build (build-tools, jburg-types) into a
>> > separate
>> > > > repository where they can be released independently and
>> don’t
>> > cause
>> > > > confusion like they are doing right now.
>> > > > > * Then I would like to create a new repository
>> (Let’s
>> > call
>> > > it
>> > > > “royale”) which contains 3 directories: compiler, typedefs
>> and
>> > asjs
>> > > (or
>> > > > even with the current “royale-“ prefix, I don’t really
>> > care/mind).
>> > > > > * Now comes the biggest block … I would need to
>> > completely
>> > > > rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the core of it would be
>> also
>> > moved
>> > > to the
>> > > > new build-tools repository. This plugin would sort of be an
>> > empty
>> > > skeleton
>> > > > to load compiler plugins. This is needed as Maven can’t
>> build a
>> > > project
>> > > > where a plugin used in the project is also part of the build
>> > itself.
>> > > So we
>> > > > couldn’t build all-in-one go without this change.
>> > > > > * Next step would be to add a new royale-parent pom
>> > in the
>> > > new
>> > > > root of the project, the 3 old parents would be updated to
>> use
>> > the
>> > > new
>> > > > parent and a lot of duplicated configuration could be moved
>> > there,
>> > > hereby
>> > > > greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > A migration plan, could be to :
>> > > > >
>> > > > > * create a feature-branch in all 3 repositories
>> > > > > * create two new repos “royale” and
>> > “royale-build-tools” (or
>> > > > whatever you want to name them)
>> > > > > * Start with using git submodules to import the 3
>> > branches
>> > > into
>> > > > the new (I know submodules really suck, but they would only
>> be
>> > > needed until
>> > > > everything is finished)
>> > > > > * I would move/copy the build tools to the new repo
>> > and
>> > > start
>> > > > working on the new maven plugin
>> > > > > * Then I would need to update the old compiler
>> repo to
>> > > produce
>> > > > something I can use as royale-maven-plugin plugins
>> > > > > * After that’s done I would update the typedefs to
>> > use the
>> > > new
>> > > > plugin
>> > > > > * After that’s done I would update the asjs repo to
>> > use the
>> > > new
>> > > > plugin
>> > > > > * Then I would add the new royale-parent pom
>> > > > > * After that’s done I would simplify and
>> deduplicate
>> > the
>> > > > configuration
>> > > > > * Now I would definitely need some help with
>> > adjusting the
>> > > Ant
>> > > > and possibly NPM build to these changes (Most of them
>> should be
>> > > > profile-names and maybe directory names or paths)
>> > > > > * The last thing that would be required to be done
>> now
>> > > would be
>> > > > to remove the submodules in the “royale” repository and to
>> > import
>> > > the real
>> > > > repos
>> > > > > * After this the 3 old repos could be archived
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I am really looking forward to some open discussion on
>> > this.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Chris
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > >
>> > > Piotr Zarzycki
>> > >
>> > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
>> > > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Piotr Zarzycki
>> >
>> > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
>> > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>>
>> Piotr Zarzycki
>>
>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>>
>
>
> --
> Andrew Wetmore
>
> http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
>
--
Andrew Wetmore
http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Posted by Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com>.
Oh, of course!
Chris, I am trying to move up to the website stuff that Royale users would
want quick access to, and keep on the wiki stuff that the development team
needs, or that is "tl:dr" details. I would be happy to work with you to get
your material on the github wiki and to curate it so it appears where we
all can find it. This is what I do for the Infrastructure team at ASF, who
had a backlog of 20 years of material with nobody curating it.
As you probably know, the patterns for the two wikis are very similar.
Andrew
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 8:55 AM Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Chris,
>
> We are not using confluence at all. We are using Wiki [1], but you can
> write document in whatever place you wanted to if you are not comfortable
> with wiki.
>
> Andrew,
>
> Will you be willing to translate that document into our Wiki manner ?
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki
>
> Thanks,
> Piotr
>
> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:43 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
> napisał(a):
>
> > Hi Piotr,
> >
> > I think the Royale project could grant my user write permissions to
> > confluence.
> > Then I could write such a document there.
> >
> > But I could also do a google doc outside, if this is more convenient.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 28.05.20, 13:39 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com
> >:
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> > I think I would like to be after Harbs and eventually Greg. Yes you
> can
> > send me a link, write a document with absolutely EVERY step which I
> > have to
> > do in order to get release done. Even if you think that I know some
> > steps
> > like signing - you can in such places point into some existing
> > document.
> >
> > I would like to be able to comment on every step to confront if I
> > really
> > for example had to copy/paste some command or just opposite I had to
> do
> > much more than only copy/paste.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Piotr
> >
> > czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:27 Christofer Dutz <christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
> >
> > napisał(a):
> >
> > > Hi Piotr,
> > >
> > > we could change the configuration to use the jgit plugin on the CI
> > machine
> > > and to use the default on local machines.
> > > In that case you could do it on any machine you want (also windows)
> > >
> > > Who does releases in which order using which tooling ... I don't
> > really
> > > care ...
> > >
> > > I'm just happy that there's a line building up of people wanting to
> > do so
> > > and I get to use fresh releases :-)
> > >
> > > If there is anything I can help with ... just ping me and I'll be
> > happy to
> > > help.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Am 28.05.20, 13:18 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > Hi Harbs,
> > >
> > > I would like to be a release manager as well, but using Chri's
> > > implementation which as far as I know is in place. I would like
> > to use
> > > his
> > > mentioned 3 steps and see how much things I will have to do on
> > my own
> > > to
> > > make release happen. I know that I will have to do that on Mac,
> > cause
> > > there
> > > some Maven/Git/Jenkins related plugin which allows use Jenkins,
> > but it
> > > prevents me from pushing artifacts from windows.
> > >
> > > I have some thoughts about above proposition, but I will wait
> > till we
> > > all
> > > pass trough the release process.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Piotr
> > >
> > > czw., 28 maj 2020 o 11:06 Christofer Dutz <
> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > napisał(a):
> > >
> > > > Hi Harbs,
> > > >
> > > > makes sense.
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Chris,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for you work helping with the 0.9.7 release as
> well.
> > > >
> > > > I’m definitely open to improving the structure and the
> > process.
> > > >
> > > > My biggest hesitation is that I don’t understand the
> > current
> > > release
> > > > process well enough. Until recently Alex was the only one who
> > really
> > > > understood it. Yishay just went through the process so he has
> > a good
> > > > understanding now. I plan on doing another release the week
> > > following next
> > > > (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope is that I will
> > understand it
> > > better
> > > > at that point. I don’t know whether Greg Dove is willing to
> do
> > a
> > > release,
> > > > but I think it would be very valuable to get his input as
> well.
> > > >
> > > > So my proposal is that we get some more of us familiar
> > with the
> > > what
> > > > and the why of the current process. I want to understand what
> > was
> > > done and
> > > > why it was done. I don’t feel comfortable having an opinion
> on
> > > changing
> > > > things until I can weigh the pros and cons. I’d like more of
> > us to
> > > be in
> > > > the same position so we will be in the position of building
> > > consensus on
> > > > changes. The reason I hope that Greg Dove specifically does a
> > > release is
> > > > because I feel he’s pretty neutral on technology and I think
> > he’ll
> > > have
> > > > good valuable input.
> > > >
> > > > So here’s my proposal:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3 releases in rapid
> > succession
> > > > without making too many changes.
> > > > 2. Let’s try and get as many of us familiar with that
> > process as
> > > > possible.
> > > > 3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss the pain points and
> > what can
> > > be
> > > > done to improve the structure and/or the process with pros
> and
> > cons.
> > > Maybe
> > > > your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe something else?
> > Similar?
> > > Don’t
> > > > know, but I’d like to get to the point where we can have an
> > > intelligent
> > > > discussion on the topic with different points of view. I
> don’t
> > think
> > > we’re
> > > > quite there yet.
> > > > 4. Carefully start implementing changes. Making big
> > changes is
> > > often
> > > > disruptive and is often the cause of conflict. This is
> nothing
> > > specific to
> > > > us, and there’s even accepted advice on the topic. I suggest
> > we all
> > > read
> > > > and follow James Duncan Davidson's “rules for
> > revolutionaries”[1].
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate having your proposed changes to ponder the
> > next
> > > couple of
> > > > weeks.
> > > >
> > > > In the meantime, please by all means, dive into Royale
> and
> > create
> > > > issues, pull requests, let us know difficulties, etc. I’ll
> > make my
> > > best
> > > > effort to be as responsive as possible and help where I can.
> If
> > > you’re
> > > > feeling frustration, please reach out to me on Slack.
> > > >
> > > > Does this make sense?
> > > > Harbs
> > > >
> > > > [1]http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries <
> > > > http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries>
> > > >
> > > > > On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Christofer Dutz <
> > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > congrats to the successful release of 0.9.7 … it
> greatly
> > > simplified
> > > > the last PLC4X release to have the artifacts out there in the
> > wild.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would really like to see Royale as the tool in my
> > toolbox for
> > > > building industrial UI applications as I sort of am not that
> > happy
> > > with the
> > > > other existing alternatives.
> > > > >
> > > > > In order to do this I know that I have some areas of
> > expertise
> > > I can
> > > > offer to the project … Writing ActionScript and MXML code is
> > > definitely not
> > > > where I can help best.
> > > > >
> > > > > However I’m really good at Java, Maven and Apache
> > > Infrastructure. I
> > > > know that development is most active in the ASJS repo but I
> > would be
> > > happy
> > > > to help on the other sides ... perhaps even help the
> automated
> > > testing in
> > > > the ASJS repo.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would have one proposal on how to really simplify
> > things,
> > > but I
> > > > would be hesitant to start working on this before we have
> > consensus
> > > on this
> > > > here.
> > > > > It would probably involve multiple weeks of full time
> > work in
> > > total
> > > > to do it for me, but I would be happy to do it, if the
> project
> > would
> > > accept
> > > > it in the end and you folks would be willing to help with the
> > parts
> > > I’m not
> > > > too deep into (Ant-, NPM build adjustments). So that’s why
> I’m
> > > bringing
> > > > this up here first. I know it might question some unwritten
> > project
> > > rules,
> > > > but I would kindly ask you to not just block the discussion
> and
> > > perhaps
> > > > help re-evaluating why they became “project rules” and if the
> > > assumptions
> > > > were correct or still apply.
> > > > >
> > > > > The benefit would be:
> > > > >
> > > > > * Less problems in getting set-up (just clone one
> > repo)
> > > > > * Simpler release (Only need to release one
> > repository … no
> > > > updating of version information in-between)
> > > > > * Less things that can go wrong (I remember when
> > compiler
> > > was
> > > > already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest wasn’t yet … there
> were
> > issues
> > > > discussed on the list)
> > > > > * I would use the opportunity to clean up some
> things
> > in the
> > > > maven build, because despite the probably common assumption …
> > I’m not
> > > > really happy with the usability of the maven build from a
> > user’s
> > > > perspective … I think there’s great room for improvement
> > > > >
> > > > > In general I would propose to merge all 3 repositories
> > into
> > > one.
> > > > Right now the Maven build would probably work with different
> > > releases of
> > > > the compiler or typedefs but from what I can see … the Ant
> > release
> > > would
> > > > probably not work without modification. So the whole idea of
> > > releasing
> > > > separately seems to be more a theoretical one. I think in the
> > > history of
> > > > FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done once (please correct me
> > if I’m
> > > > wrong). If there are external entities only interested in
> > consuming
> > > parts
> > > > of the project, we could build source distribution for these
> > that
> > > only
> > > > contain the parts they are interest in.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > * I propose to move the artifacts needed for the
> > build but
> > > not
> > > > being part of the build (build-tools, jburg-types) into a
> > separate
> > > > repository where they can be released independently and don’t
> > cause
> > > > confusion like they are doing right now.
> > > > > * Then I would like to create a new repository
> (Let’s
> > call
> > > it
> > > > “royale”) which contains 3 directories: compiler, typedefs
> and
> > asjs
> > > (or
> > > > even with the current “royale-“ prefix, I don’t really
> > care/mind).
> > > > > * Now comes the biggest block … I would need to
> > completely
> > > > rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the core of it would be
> also
> > moved
> > > to the
> > > > new build-tools repository. This plugin would sort of be an
> > empty
> > > skeleton
> > > > to load compiler plugins. This is needed as Maven can’t
> build a
> > > project
> > > > where a plugin used in the project is also part of the build
> > itself.
> > > So we
> > > > couldn’t build all-in-one go without this change.
> > > > > * Next step would be to add a new royale-parent pom
> > in the
> > > new
> > > > root of the project, the 3 old parents would be updated to
> use
> > the
> > > new
> > > > parent and a lot of duplicated configuration could be moved
> > there,
> > > hereby
> > > > greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms.
> > > > >
> > > > > A migration plan, could be to :
> > > > >
> > > > > * create a feature-branch in all 3 repositories
> > > > > * create two new repos “royale” and
> > “royale-build-tools” (or
> > > > whatever you want to name them)
> > > > > * Start with using git submodules to import the 3
> > branches
> > > into
> > > > the new (I know submodules really suck, but they would only
> be
> > > needed until
> > > > everything is finished)
> > > > > * I would move/copy the build tools to the new repo
> > and
> > > start
> > > > working on the new maven plugin
> > > > > * Then I would need to update the old compiler repo
> to
> > > produce
> > > > something I can use as royale-maven-plugin plugins
> > > > > * After that’s done I would update the typedefs to
> > use the
> > > new
> > > > plugin
> > > > > * After that’s done I would update the asjs repo to
> > use the
> > > new
> > > > plugin
> > > > > * Then I would add the new royale-parent pom
> > > > > * After that’s done I would simplify and deduplicate
> > the
> > > > configuration
> > > > > * Now I would definitely need some help with
> > adjusting the
> > > Ant
> > > > and possibly NPM build to these changes (Most of them should
> be
> > > > profile-names and maybe directory names or paths)
> > > > > * The last thing that would be required to be done
> now
> > > would be
> > > > to remove the submodules in the “royale” repository and to
> > import
> > > the real
> > > > repos
> > > > > * After this the 3 old repos could be archived
> > > > >
> > > > > I am really looking forward to some open discussion on
> > this.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Piotr Zarzycki
> > >
> > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>
--
Andrew Wetmore
http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi,
I think a google doc that have collaborative commenting and editing with
concurrency will be more suited and easy, while you don't need to mount
anything special.
El jue., 28 may. 2020 a las 16:36, Christofer Dutz (<
christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>) escribió:
> Hi all,
>
> well perhaps searching for some experiences with this ...
> my gut-feeling would make me expect to have the wiki content replaced by
> Viagra ads ;-)
>
> But it would be in git, so easily undoable ....
>
> I did find this however:
>
> https://www.growingwiththeweb.com/2016/07/enabling-pull-requests-on-github-wikis.html
>
> It's less convenient way, but probably safer.
>
> Chris
>
>
> Am 28.05.20, 16:25 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
>
> Hmm. That’s a problem I was not aware of...
>
> What do folks think about enabling public editing of wikis?[1]
>
> Harbs
>
> [1]
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> <
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> >
>
> > On May 28, 2020, at 5:00 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > so I just had a look ... it seems as if the "fork" feature on github
> doesn't fork the wiki too ...
> > So I could create my own pages, but not create PRs for documentation
> ... or I just didn't find the docs on how to do it.
> > Do you have any pointers for me?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > Am 28.05.20, 13:55 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> > We are not using confluence at all. We are using Wiki [1], but
> you can
> > write document in whatever place you wanted to if you are not
> comfortable
> > with wiki.
> >
> > Andrew,
> >
> > Will you be willing to translate that document into our Wiki
> manner ?
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Piotr
> >
> > czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:43 Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > napisał(a):
> >
> >> Hi Piotr,
> >>
> >> I think the Royale project could grant my user write permissions to
> >> confluence.
> >> Then I could write such a document there.
> >>
> >> But I could also do a google doc outside, if this is more
> convenient.
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 28.05.20, 13:39 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> Chris,
> >>
> >> I think I would like to be after Harbs and eventually Greg. Yes
> you can
> >> send me a link, write a document with absolutely EVERY step
> which I
> >> have to
> >> do in order to get release done. Even if you think that I know
> some
> >> steps
> >> like signing - you can in such places point into some existing
> >> document.
> >>
> >> I would like to be able to comment on every step to confront if I
> >> really
> >> for example had to copy/paste some command or just opposite I
> had to do
> >> much more than only copy/paste.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Piotr
> >>
> >> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:27 Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> >> napisał(a):
> >>
> >>> Hi Piotr,
> >>>
> >>> we could change the configuration to use the jgit plugin on the CI
> >> machine
> >>> and to use the default on local machines.
> >>> In that case you could do it on any machine you want (also windows)
> >>>
> >>> Who does releases in which order using which tooling ... I don't
> >> really
> >>> care ...
> >>>
> >>> I'm just happy that there's a line building up of people wanting to
> >> do so
> >>> and I get to use fresh releases :-)
> >>>
> >>> If there is anything I can help with ... just ping me and I'll be
> >> happy to
> >>> help.
> >>>
> >>> Chris
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Am 28.05.20, 13:18 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> >> piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Harbs,
> >>>
> >>> I would like to be a release manager as well, but using Chri's
> >>> implementation which as far as I know is in place. I would like
> >> to use
> >>> his
> >>> mentioned 3 steps and see how much things I will have to do on
> >> my own
> >>> to
> >>> make release happen. I know that I will have to do that on Mac,
> >> cause
> >>> there
> >>> some Maven/Git/Jenkins related plugin which allows use Jenkins,
> >> but it
> >>> prevents me from pushing artifacts from windows.
> >>>
> >>> I have some thoughts about above proposition, but I will wait
> >> till we
> >>> all
> >>> pass trough the release process.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Piotr
> >>>
> >>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 11:06 Christofer Dutz <
> >> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> >>> napisał(a):
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Harbs,
> >>>>
> >>>> makes sense.
> >>>>
> >>>> Chris
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Chris,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for you work helping with the 0.9.7 release as well.
> >>>>
> >>>> I’m definitely open to improving the structure and the
> >> process.
> >>>>
> >>>> My biggest hesitation is that I don’t understand the
> >> current
> >>> release
> >>>> process well enough. Until recently Alex was the only one who
> >> really
> >>>> understood it. Yishay just went through the process so he has
> >> a good
> >>>> understanding now. I plan on doing another release the week
> >>> following next
> >>>> (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope is that I will
> >> understand it
> >>> better
> >>>> at that point. I don’t know whether Greg Dove is willing to do
> >> a
> >>> release,
> >>>> but I think it would be very valuable to get his input as well.
> >>>>
> >>>> So my proposal is that we get some more of us familiar
> >> with the
> >>> what
> >>>> and the why of the current process. I want to understand what
> >> was
> >>> done and
> >>>> why it was done. I don’t feel comfortable having an opinion on
> >>> changing
> >>>> things until I can weigh the pros and cons. I’d like more of
> >> us to
> >>> be in
> >>>> the same position so we will be in the position of building
> >>> consensus on
> >>>> changes. The reason I hope that Greg Dove specifically does a
> >>> release is
> >>>> because I feel he’s pretty neutral on technology and I think
> >> he’ll
> >>> have
> >>>> good valuable input.
> >>>>
> >>>> So here’s my proposal:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3 releases in rapid
> >> succession
> >>>> without making too many changes.
> >>>> 2. Let’s try and get as many of us familiar with that
> >> process as
> >>>> possible.
> >>>> 3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss the pain points and
> >> what can
> >>> be
> >>>> done to improve the structure and/or the process with pros and
> >> cons.
> >>> Maybe
> >>>> your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe something else?
> >> Similar?
> >>> Don’t
> >>>> know, but I’d like to get to the point where we can have an
> >>> intelligent
> >>>> discussion on the topic with different points of view. I don’t
> >> think
> >>> we’re
> >>>> quite there yet.
> >>>> 4. Carefully start implementing changes. Making big
> >> changes is
> >>> often
> >>>> disruptive and is often the cause of conflict. This is nothing
> >>> specific to
> >>>> us, and there’s even accepted advice on the topic. I suggest
> >> we all
> >>> read
> >>>> and follow James Duncan Davidson's “rules for
> >> revolutionaries”[1].
> >>>>
> >>>> I appreciate having your proposed changes to ponder the
> >> next
> >>> couple of
> >>>> weeks.
> >>>>
> >>>> In the meantime, please by all means, dive into Royale and
> >> create
> >>>> issues, pull requests, let us know difficulties, etc. I’ll
> >> make my
> >>> best
> >>>> effort to be as responsive as possible and help where I can. If
> >>> you’re
> >>>> feeling frustration, please reach out to me on Slack.
> >>>>
> >>>> Does this make sense?
> >>>> Harbs
> >>>>
> >>>> [1]http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries <
> >>>> http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Christofer Dutz <
> >>>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> congrats to the successful release of 0.9.7 … it greatly
> >>> simplified
> >>>> the last PLC4X release to have the artifacts out there in the
> >> wild.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would really like to see Royale as the tool in my
> >> toolbox for
> >>>> building industrial UI applications as I sort of am not that
> >> happy
> >>> with the
> >>>> other existing alternatives.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In order to do this I know that I have some areas of
> >> expertise
> >>> I can
> >>>> offer to the project … Writing ActionScript and MXML code is
> >>> definitely not
> >>>> where I can help best.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> However I’m really good at Java, Maven and Apache
> >>> Infrastructure. I
> >>>> know that development is most active in the ASJS repo but I
> >> would be
> >>> happy
> >>>> to help on the other sides ... perhaps even help the automated
> >>> testing in
> >>>> the ASJS repo.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would have one proposal on how to really simplify
> >> things,
> >>> but I
> >>>> would be hesitant to start working on this before we have
> >> consensus
> >>> on this
> >>>> here.
> >>>>> It would probably involve multiple weeks of full time
> >> work in
> >>> total
> >>>> to do it for me, but I would be happy to do it, if the project
> >> would
> >>> accept
> >>>> it in the end and you folks would be willing to help with the
> >> parts
> >>> I’m not
> >>>> too deep into (Ant-, NPM build adjustments). So that’s why I’m
> >>> bringing
> >>>> this up here first. I know it might question some unwritten
> >> project
> >>> rules,
> >>>> but I would kindly ask you to not just block the discussion and
> >>> perhaps
> >>>> help re-evaluating why they became “project rules” and if the
> >>> assumptions
> >>>> were correct or still apply.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The benefit would be:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * Less problems in getting set-up (just clone one
> >> repo)
> >>>>> * Simpler release (Only need to release one
> >> repository … no
> >>>> updating of version information in-between)
> >>>>> * Less things that can go wrong (I remember when
> >> compiler
> >>> was
> >>>> already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest wasn’t yet … there were
> >> issues
> >>>> discussed on the list)
> >>>>> * I would use the opportunity to clean up some things
> >> in the
> >>>> maven build, because despite the probably common assumption …
> >> I’m not
> >>>> really happy with the usability of the maven build from a
> >> user’s
> >>>> perspective … I think there’s great room for improvement
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In general I would propose to merge all 3 repositories
> >> into
> >>> one.
> >>>> Right now the Maven build would probably work with different
> >>> releases of
> >>>> the compiler or typedefs but from what I can see … the Ant
> >> release
> >>> would
> >>>> probably not work without modification. So the whole idea of
> >>> releasing
> >>>> separately seems to be more a theoretical one. I think in the
> >>> history of
> >>>> FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done once (please correct me
> >> if I’m
> >>>> wrong). If there are external entities only interested in
> >> consuming
> >>> parts
> >>>> of the project, we could build source distribution for these
> >> that
> >>> only
> >>>> contain the parts they are interest in.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * I propose to move the artifacts needed for the
> >> build but
> >>> not
> >>>> being part of the build (build-tools, jburg-types) into a
> >> separate
> >>>> repository where they can be released independently and don’t
> >> cause
> >>>> confusion like they are doing right now.
> >>>>> * Then I would like to create a new repository (Let’s
> >> call
> >>> it
> >>>> “royale”) which contains 3 directories: compiler, typedefs and
> >> asjs
> >>> (or
> >>>> even with the current “royale-“ prefix, I don’t really
> >> care/mind).
> >>>>> * Now comes the biggest block … I would need to
> >> completely
> >>>> rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the core of it would be also
> >> moved
> >>> to the
> >>>> new build-tools repository. This plugin would sort of be an
> >> empty
> >>> skeleton
> >>>> to load compiler plugins. This is needed as Maven can’t build a
> >>> project
> >>>> where a plugin used in the project is also part of the build
> >> itself.
> >>> So we
> >>>> couldn’t build all-in-one go without this change.
> >>>>> * Next step would be to add a new royale-parent pom
> >> in the
> >>> new
> >>>> root of the project, the 3 old parents would be updated to use
> >> the
> >>> new
> >>>> parent and a lot of duplicated configuration could be moved
> >> there,
> >>> hereby
> >>>> greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A migration plan, could be to :
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * create a feature-branch in all 3 repositories
> >>>>> * create two new repos “royale” and
> >> “royale-build-tools” (or
> >>>> whatever you want to name them)
> >>>>> * Start with using git submodules to import the 3
> >> branches
> >>> into
> >>>> the new (I know submodules really suck, but they would only be
> >>> needed until
> >>>> everything is finished)
> >>>>> * I would move/copy the build tools to the new repo
> >> and
> >>> start
> >>>> working on the new maven plugin
> >>>>> * Then I would need to update the old compiler repo to
> >>> produce
> >>>> something I can use as royale-maven-plugin plugins
> >>>>> * After that’s done I would update the typedefs to
> >> use the
> >>> new
> >>>> plugin
> >>>>> * After that’s done I would update the asjs repo to
> >> use the
> >>> new
> >>>> plugin
> >>>>> * Then I would add the new royale-parent pom
> >>>>> * After that’s done I would simplify and deduplicate
> >> the
> >>>> configuration
> >>>>> * Now I would definitely need some help with
> >> adjusting the
> >>> Ant
> >>>> and possibly NPM build to these changes (Most of them should be
> >>>> profile-names and maybe directory names or paths)
> >>>>> * The last thing that would be required to be done now
> >>> would be
> >>>> to remove the submodules in the “royale” repository and to
> >> import
> >>> the real
> >>>> repos
> >>>>> * After this the 3 old repos could be archived
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am really looking forward to some open discussion on
> >> this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Chris
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Piotr Zarzycki
> >>>
> >>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> >>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Piotr Zarzycki
> >>
> >> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> >> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> >
> > Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> >
>
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
Hi Greg,
I rely like what you mentioned about Royale Unit. I think a RoyaleUnit surefire plugin would really be a great addition.
I always thought of the ui test as integration tests. So that would be a perfect addition for the maven tooling. Especially with respect to being able to test Royale with any tooling. Right now we have some tests run with ant, some with maven. In my opinion they should all be able to run with both.
Guess I'll be reaching out to Josh about that.
Chris
________________________________
Von: Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com>
Gesendet: Sonntag, 31. Mai 2020 00:40
An: Apache Royale Development <de...@royale.apache.org>
Betreff: Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Chris, Harbs & others,
Sorry I didn't reply earlier on this thread, I have been very focused on
some intense work tasks, consuming extra hours in each day for some time
now.
Unless I misunderstood something, I think we already had consensus on
top-level things like:
a) we need the royale sdk (as3 language support + application framework +
compiler + typedefs) to continue to be usable via ant, maven, npm and
possibly other future build tools
b) we need the distribution/artifacts to be validated for each of the
end-user supported build tools
c) we need the release process to be as simple and streamlined as possible,
while still keeping quality checks in place.
This is just my limited interpretation/synthesis of discussions to date, so
I hope it it makes sense. There were some expressions that certain things
had to be done a certain way at (c) in order to achieve (b).
If my expression above (representing my understanding) is correct, then I
really don't care what tech we use to achieve (c), so long as (a) and (b)
are achieved. I guess the only other thing I would add is that whatever we
use for (c) should be easy to understand and maintain, but perhaps that is
inherent in the 'simple and streamlined' part of what I expressed.
Chris,
Thanks for investing your time in this, and for your proposal. If my
understanding above is correct then I think your proposal covers that along
with the general improvements in maven configurations and support.
I'll try to find time to watch the video in the coming week.
One specific comment about: ' perhaps even help the automated testing in
the ASJS repo.'
At the moment there is a RoyaleUnit ant task that Josh created. If
RoyaleUnit could somehow be supported via maven that would be awesome. I
know you have other approaches as well for automated UI testing, but
RoyaleUnit permits re-use of legacy FlexUnit tests, so supporting that via
maven would be a major plus, I think.
Harbs,
Thanks for the suggestion that I participate as RM. I only understand the
current process in a very abstract sense, apart from the time I watched
Chris and Carlos going through the first 7 steps.
I agree that, in general, it's better to understand a process before
decisions relating to improvements are considered for that process, and I
know I do not really understand it well. But I don't think that needs to
include me, and would prefer not to be RM in the near term. I will be happy
to do this at some point, but I envisage my time being quite pre-occupied
with asjs (particularly emulation) work over the next couple of months, and
prefer to keep my limited neurons focused on that for now. Basically, I am
happy to defer to others here.
As an aside, one of the issues identified in recent weeks was the DST
alignment issue which seemed to require DST alignment between RM's local
machine and the CI server. Perhaps that is fixed now, I am not sure. If it
is not then, based on the original description of the cause of that
problem, it might preclude me being RM until it is fixed in any case,
because that misalignment would hold true most of the year for me (I would
consider it important to fix, but not urgent to fix because we have, I
believe, no others currently from the southern hemisphere who could be RM
right now anyway).
Greg
On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 4:02 AM Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today I just prepared my forks of royale again and did a full release of
> all 3 repos and did a video recording of that.
> I did find some minor quirks which I'll whip up a PR for (no profile name
> or directory changes).
>
> As soon as I am finished cutting the video and removed lots minutes of
> jewl-theme-compilation stuff I'll publish the link to the videos here.
>
> Chris
>
> Am 28.05.20, 18:03 schrieb "Andrew Wetmore" <co...@gmail.com>:
>
> Seems like the simplest way.
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:55 PM Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Infra says there's nothing in-between all or nothing with github :-(
> >
> > So I'll probably go down the google doc route and have the text
> imported
> > by one of you folks.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > Am 28.05.20, 17:38 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > I’m going offline for two days so I’ll be quiet for a while, but
> it
> > might be a good idea to ask infra whether they have a solution to
> this
> > problem.
> >
> > Harbs
> >
> > > On May 28, 2020, at 5:36 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > well perhaps searching for some experiences with this ...
> > > my gut-feeling would make me expect to have the wiki content
> > replaced by Viagra ads ;-)
> > >
> > > But it would be in git, so easily undoable ....
> > >
> > > I did find this however:
> > >
> >
> https://www.growingwiththeweb.com/2016/07/enabling-pull-requests-on-github-wikis.html
> > >
> > > It's less convenient way, but probably safer.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > > Am 28.05.20, 16:25 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > Hmm. That’s a problem I was not aware of...
> > >
> > > What do folks think about enabling public editing of
> wikis?[1]
> > >
> > > Harbs
> > >
> > > [1]
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> > <
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> > >
> > >
> > >> On May 28, 2020, at 5:00 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> so I just had a look ... it seems as if the "fork" feature on
> > github doesn't fork the wiki too ...
> > >> So I could create my own pages, but not create PRs for
> > documentation ... or I just didn't find the docs on how to do it.
> > >> Do you have any pointers for me?
> > >>
> > >> Chris
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Am 28.05.20, 13:55 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > >>
> > >> Chris,
> > >>
> > >> We are not using confluence at all. We are using Wiki [1],
> but
> > you can
> > >> write document in whatever place you wanted to if you are
> not
> > comfortable
> > >> with wiki.
> > >>
> > >> Andrew,
> > >>
> > >> Will you be willing to translate that document into our Wiki
> > manner ?
> > >>
> > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Piotr
> > >>
> > >> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:43 Christofer Dutz <
> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > >> napisał(a):
> > >>
> > >>> Hi Piotr,
> > >>>
> > >>> I think the Royale project could grant my user write
> permissions to
> > >>> confluence.
> > >>> Then I could write such a document there.
> > >>>
> > >>> But I could also do a google doc outside, if this is more
> > convenient.
> > >>>
> > >>> Chris
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Am 28.05.20, 13:39 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > >>>
> > >>> Chris,
> > >>>
> > >>> I think I would like to be after Harbs and eventually
> Greg. Yes
> > you can
> > >>> send me a link, write a document with absolutely EVERY step
> > which I
> > >>> have to
> > >>> do in order to get release done. Even if you think that I
> know
> > some
> > >>> steps
> > >>> like signing - you can in such places point into some
> existing
> > >>> document.
> > >>>
> > >>> I would like to be able to comment on every step to
> confront if I
> > >>> really
> > >>> for example had to copy/paste some command or just
> opposite I
> > had to do
> > >>> much more than only copy/paste.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Piotr
> > >>>
> > >>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:27 Christofer Dutz <
> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > >>> napisał(a):
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hi Piotr,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> we could change the configuration to use the jgit plugin on
> the CI
> > >>> machine
> > >>>> and to use the default on local machines.
> > >>>> In that case you could do it on any machine you want (also
> > windows)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Who does releases in which order using which tooling ... I
> don't
> > >>> really
> > >>>> care ...
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'm just happy that there's a line building up of people
> wanting
> > to
> > >>> do so
> > >>>> and I get to use fresh releases :-)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If there is anything I can help with ... just ping me and
> I'll be
> > >>> happy to
> > >>>> help.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Chris
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Am 28.05.20, 13:18 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > >>> piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi Harbs,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I would like to be a release manager as well, but using
> Chri's
> > >>>> implementation which as far as I know is in place. I
> would like
> > >>> to use
> > >>>> his
> > >>>> mentioned 3 steps and see how much things I will have to
> do on
> > >>> my own
> > >>>> to
> > >>>> make release happen. I know that I will have to do that
> on Mac,
> > >>> cause
> > >>>> there
> > >>>> some Maven/Git/Jenkins related plugin which allows use
> Jenkins,
> > >>> but it
> > >>>> prevents me from pushing artifacts from windows.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I have some thoughts about above proposition, but I will
> wait
> > >>> till we
> > >>>> all
> > >>>> pass trough the release process.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> Piotr
> > >>>>
> > >>>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 11:06 Christofer Dutz <
> > >>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > >>>> napisał(a):
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Hi Harbs,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> makes sense.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Chris
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" <harbs.lists@gmail.com
> >:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Hi Chris,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks for you work helping with the 0.9.7 release as
> well.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I’m definitely open to improving the structure and the
> > >>> process.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> My biggest hesitation is that I don’t understand the
> > >>> current
> > >>>> release
> > >>>>> process well enough. Until recently Alex was the only one
> who
> > >>> really
> > >>>>> understood it. Yishay just went through the process so he
> has
> > >>> a good
> > >>>>> understanding now. I plan on doing another release the week
> > >>>> following next
> > >>>>> (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope is that I will
> > >>> understand it
> > >>>> better
> > >>>>> at that point. I don’t know whether Greg Dove is willing
> to do
> > >>> a
> > >>>> release,
> > >>>>> but I think it would be very valuable to get his input as
> well.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> So my proposal is that we get some more of us familiar
> > >>> with the
> > >>>> what
> > >>>>> and the why of the current process. I want to understand
> what
> > >>> was
> > >>>> done and
> > >>>>> why it was done. I don’t feel comfortable having an
> opinion on
> > >>>> changing
> > >>>>> things until I can weigh the pros and cons. I’d like more
> of
> > >>> us to
> > >>>> be in
> > >>>>> the same position so we will be in the position of building
> > >>>> consensus on
> > >>>>> changes. The reason I hope that Greg Dove specifically
> does a
> > >>>> release is
> > >>>>> because I feel he’s pretty neutral on technology and I
> think
> > >>> he’ll
> > >>>> have
> > >>>>> good valuable input.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> So here’s my proposal:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3 releases in rapid
> > >>> succession
> > >>>>> without making too many changes.
> > >>>>> 2. Let’s try and get as many of us familiar with that
> > >>> process as
> > >>>>> possible.
> > >>>>> 3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss the pain points and
> > >>> what can
> > >>>> be
> > >>>>> done to improve the structure and/or the process with pros
> and
> > >>> cons.
> > >>>> Maybe
> > >>>>> your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe something else?
> > >>> Similar?
> > >>>> Don’t
> > >>>>> know, but I’d like to get to the point where we can have an
> > >>>> intelligent
> > >>>>> discussion on the topic with different points of view. I
> don’t
> > >>> think
> > >>>> we’re
> > >>>>> quite there yet.
> > >>>>> 4. Carefully start implementing changes. Making big
> > >>> changes is
> > >>>> often
> > >>>>> disruptive and is often the cause of conflict. This is
> nothing
> > >>>> specific to
> > >>>>> us, and there’s even accepted advice on the topic. I
> suggest
> > >>> we all
> > >>>> read
> > >>>>> and follow James Duncan Davidson's “rules for
> > >>> revolutionaries”[1].
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I appreciate having your proposed changes to ponder the
> > >>> next
> > >>>> couple of
> > >>>>> weeks.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> In the meantime, please by all means, dive into Royale
> and
> > >>> create
> > >>>>> issues, pull requests, let us know difficulties, etc. I’ll
> > >>> make my
> > >>>> best
> > >>>>> effort to be as responsive as possible and help where I
> can. If
> > >>>> you’re
> > >>>>> feeling frustration, please reach out to me on Slack.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Does this make sense?
> > >>>>> Harbs
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> [1]http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries <
> > >>>>> http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Christofer Dutz <
> > >>>>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> congrats to the successful release of 0.9.7 … it greatly
> > >>>> simplified
> > >>>>> the last PLC4X release to have the artifacts out there in
> the
> > >>> wild.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I would really like to see Royale as the tool in my
> > >>> toolbox for
> > >>>>> building industrial UI applications as I sort of am not
> that
> > >>> happy
> > >>>> with the
> > >>>>> other existing alternatives.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> In order to do this I know that I have some areas of
> > >>> expertise
> > >>>> I can
> > >>>>> offer to the project … Writing ActionScript and MXML code
> is
> > >>>> definitely not
> > >>>>> where I can help best.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> However I’m really good at Java, Maven and Apache
> > >>>> Infrastructure. I
> > >>>>> know that development is most active in the ASJS repo but I
> > >>> would be
> > >>>> happy
> > >>>>> to help on the other sides ... perhaps even help the
> automated
> > >>>> testing in
> > >>>>> the ASJS repo.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I would have one proposal on how to really simplify
> > >>> things,
> > >>>> but I
> > >>>>> would be hesitant to start working on this before we have
> > >>> consensus
> > >>>> on this
> > >>>>> here.
> > >>>>>> It would probably involve multiple weeks of full time
> > >>> work in
> > >>>> total
> > >>>>> to do it for me, but I would be happy to do it, if the
> project
> > >>> would
> > >>>> accept
> > >>>>> it in the end and you folks would be willing to help with
> the
> > >>> parts
> > >>>> I’m not
> > >>>>> too deep into (Ant-, NPM build adjustments). So that’s why
> I’m
> > >>>> bringing
> > >>>>> this up here first. I know it might question some unwritten
> > >>> project
> > >>>> rules,
> > >>>>> but I would kindly ask you to not just block the
> discussion and
> > >>>> perhaps
> > >>>>> help re-evaluating why they became “project rules” and if
> the
> > >>>> assumptions
> > >>>>> were correct or still apply.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The benefit would be:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> * Less problems in getting set-up (just clone one
> > >>> repo)
> > >>>>>> * Simpler release (Only need to release one
> > >>> repository … no
> > >>>>> updating of version information in-between)
> > >>>>>> * Less things that can go wrong (I remember when
> > >>> compiler
> > >>>> was
> > >>>>> already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest wasn’t yet … there
> were
> > >>> issues
> > >>>>> discussed on the list)
> > >>>>>> * I would use the opportunity to clean up some things
> > >>> in the
> > >>>>> maven build, because despite the probably common
> assumption …
> > >>> I’m not
> > >>>>> really happy with the usability of the maven build from a
> > >>> user’s
> > >>>>> perspective … I think there’s great room for improvement
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> In general I would propose to merge all 3 repositories
> > >>> into
> > >>>> one.
> > >>>>> Right now the Maven build would probably work with
> different
> > >>>> releases of
> > >>>>> the compiler or typedefs but from what I can see … the Ant
> > >>> release
> > >>>> would
> > >>>>> probably not work without modification. So the whole idea
> of
> > >>>> releasing
> > >>>>> separately seems to be more a theoretical one. I think in
> the
> > >>>> history of
> > >>>>> FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done once (please correct
> me
> > >>> if I’m
> > >>>>> wrong). If there are external entities only interested in
> > >>> consuming
> > >>>> parts
> > >>>>> of the project, we could build source distribution for
> these
> > >>> that
> > >>>> only
> > >>>>> contain the parts they are interest in.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> * I propose to move the artifacts needed for the
> > >>> build but
> > >>>> not
> > >>>>> being part of the build (build-tools, jburg-types) into a
> > >>> separate
> > >>>>> repository where they can be released independently and
> don’t
> > >>> cause
> > >>>>> confusion like they are doing right now.
> > >>>>>> * Then I would like to create a new repository (Let’s
> > >>> call
> > >>>> it
> > >>>>> “royale”) which contains 3 directories: compiler, typedefs
> and
> > >>> asjs
> > >>>> (or
> > >>>>> even with the current “royale-“ prefix, I don’t really
> > >>> care/mind).
> > >>>>>> * Now comes the biggest block … I would need to
> > >>> completely
> > >>>>> rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the core of it would be
> also
> > >>> moved
> > >>>> to the
> > >>>>> new build-tools repository. This plugin would sort of be an
> > >>> empty
> > >>>> skeleton
> > >>>>> to load compiler plugins. This is needed as Maven can’t
> build a
> > >>>> project
> > >>>>> where a plugin used in the project is also part of the
> build
> > >>> itself.
> > >>>> So we
> > >>>>> couldn’t build all-in-one go without this change.
> > >>>>>> * Next step would be to add a new royale-parent pom
> > >>> in the
> > >>>> new
> > >>>>> root of the project, the 3 old parents would be updated to
> use
> > >>> the
> > >>>> new
> > >>>>> parent and a lot of duplicated configuration could be moved
> > >>> there,
> > >>>> hereby
> > >>>>> greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> A migration plan, could be to :
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> * create a feature-branch in all 3 repositories
> > >>>>>> * create two new repos “royale” and
> > >>> “royale-build-tools” (or
> > >>>>> whatever you want to name them)
> > >>>>>> * Start with using git submodules to import the 3
> > >>> branches
> > >>>> into
> > >>>>> the new (I know submodules really suck, but they would
> only be
> > >>>> needed until
> > >>>>> everything is finished)
> > >>>>>> * I would move/copy the build tools to the new repo
> > >>> and
> > >>>> start
> > >>>>> working on the new maven plugin
> > >>>>>> * Then I would need to update the old compiler repo to
> > >>>> produce
> > >>>>> something I can use as royale-maven-plugin plugins
> > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the typedefs to
> > >>> use the
> > >>>> new
> > >>>>> plugin
> > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the asjs repo to
> > >>> use the
> > >>>> new
> > >>>>> plugin
> > >>>>>> * Then I would add the new royale-parent pom
> > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would simplify and deduplicate
> > >>> the
> > >>>>> configuration
> > >>>>>> * Now I would definitely need some help with
> > >>> adjusting the
> > >>>> Ant
> > >>>>> and possibly NPM build to these changes (Most of them
> should be
> > >>>>> profile-names and maybe directory names or paths)
> > >>>>>> * The last thing that would be required to be done now
> > >>>> would be
> > >>>>> to remove the submodules in the “royale” repository and to
> > >>> import
> > >>>> the real
> > >>>>> repos
> > >>>>>> * After this the 3 old repos could be archived
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I am really looking forward to some open discussion on
> > >>> this.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Chris
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Piotr Zarzycki
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > >>>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>>
> > >>> Piotr Zarzycki
> > >>>
> > >>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > >>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> Piotr Zarzycki
> > >>
> > >> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > >> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Andrew Wetmore
>
> http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi Piotr,
if we convert to just 1 repo, we fill finally have just 3 steps.
Currently, since we have 3 repos, we have 13.
HTH
Carlos
El lun., 1 jun. 2020 a las 22:04, Piotr Zarzycki (<pi...@gmail.com>)
escribió:
> Chris,
>
> Yes I do understand that those "3 steps" are separated for each repository,
> so overall will be more.
>
> pon., 1 cze 2020 o 21:14 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
> napisał(a):
>
> > Hi Piotr,
> >
> > let me clarify ... the in total 3 step would work in its final
> > implementation.
> > Right now it's 3 for the compiler, 5 for the typedefs and 5 for the
> > framework.
> >
> > Just to set the expectations right ... but that's a total of 13 steps and
> > not a total
> > of 13 partially automated and even more manual steps.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > Am 01.06.20, 11:43 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com
> >:
> >
> > Carlos,
> >
> > I do have a good knowledge about our current release process, but
> what
> > Chris's proposed is a different approach - That approach I wanted to
> > try,
> > cause as far as I understand him - everything is in place and anyone
> > can
> > right now do 3 steps release.
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> > What do you mean by "cleaning up the maven plugin" ? Why do you
> wanted
> > to
> > do this before I have tried your way of releasing SDK ?
> >
> > How it influence whole process ?
> >
> > What if we reject putting together repository in 1 - Does your
> > cleaning up
> > change something - that you will have to revert later ?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Piotr
> >
> > pon., 1 cze 2020 o 11:21 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> > napisał(a):
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > that's ok for me too. Just was to expose what I think will be the
> > most
> > > optimal trip, since I thought you had a good knowledge of actual
> > state of
> > > things and what will be the improvements. But if you think you need
> > to
> > > follow up that's fine too.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > El lun., 1 jun. 2020 a las 10:24, Christofer Dutz (<
> > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>) escribió:
> > >
> > > > Hi Piotr,
> > > >
> > > > Makes perfect sense to me. guess I can start with the Royale-unit
> > > surefire
> > > > support first. I can also start cleaning up the maven plugin
> > without any
> > > of
> > > > the big steps. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
> > > >
> > > > So I would also suggest doing small steps, to keep all on board.
> > > >
> > > > The only reason I brought up this discussion was to describe the
> > final
> > > > goal for me.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > Von: Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>
> > > > Gesendet: Montag, 1. Juni 2020 09:43
> > > > An: Apache Royale Development <de...@royale.apache.org>
> > > > Betreff: Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
> > > >
> > > > Carlos,
> > > >
> > > > Like I stated I wanted to understand what Chris did, so I will be
> > the
> > > next
> > > > RM after Harbs. I'm going to use Chris's improvements and see
> what
> > > exactly
> > > > they means.
> > > >
> > > > I didn't check his video but I hope I have there complementary
> > > > instructions. I'm familiar with Maven - I expect that all of that
> > will
> > > take
> > > > max 1 day and I will have RC1. If not we need to improve before
> > any Big
> > > > steps described here.
> > > >
> > > > I do have couple of some sort of requirements towards those steps
> > if they
> > > > are really going to happen - before I talk about them I'm going
> to
> > be RM.
> > > >
> > > > I hope it makes sense to you.
> > > >
> > > > Piotr
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2020, 9:36 AM Carlos Rovira <
> > carlosrovira@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > just to add to this proposal thread expressing my opinion. I
> > think this
> > > > > change will have a huge positive impact in the project:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1.- Reduce repos from 3 to just 1, so reducing all actions and
> > overhead
> > > > all
> > > > > that implies.
> > > > > 2.- Builds will be much more easy since all is contained in one
> > repo
> > > > > instead of gathering from three. Right now builds in one repo
> > must
> > > count
> > > > > with the build produced by other(s) in the chain of execution.
> > > > > 3.- Remove duplicated config that could be just in one place
> > reducing
> > > > > complexity. Right now many configs are duplicated in each repo
> > due to
> > > the
> > > > > actual 3 repo layout.
> > > > > 4.- Releases will turn just to 3 commands on a terminal what
> > will be a
> > > > big
> > > > > point for all RMs and the project allowing us to release much
> > more
> > > easy.
> > > > > 5.- Less commands means less errors and more automation
> > > > > 6.- Times to release will cut under the current 1h 30'' (as you
> > can
> > > defer
> > > > > from the sum of the times of each video posted by Chris).
> > > > > 7.- The process will continue improving towards a maven
> > compliant build
> > > > and
> > > > > release process with all the benefits that following a standard
> > process
> > > > > means and how all of that means to the actual Apache build and
> > release
> > > > > process.
> > > > > 8.- Improving over time will be more easy too.
> > > > >
> > > > > For me this is one of the key points for reaching 1.0, since
> > will mean
> > > we
> > > > > are really prepared to do monthly (or bi-monthly if we want)
> > releases
> > > of
> > > > > Royale.
> > > > >
> > > > > About others as RMs. I think is needed to understand the actual
> > process
> > > > and
> > > > > know what will mean to improve this way. So I think is good
> > Harbs do
> > > the
> > > > > next release in the actual state to gain that knowledge. In
> > exchange I
> > > > > think Piotr already knows very close since he did 0.9.6, so
> > don't think
> > > > is
> > > > > needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the optimal time frame to work on this could be:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1.- Harbs work this June on release. Here we could improve on
> > version
> > > > > numbers [1], since we are adding lots of stuff in each release
> > and the
> > > > bug
> > > > > fixing is implied. Maybe as we settle third version numbers
> will
> > be
> > > more
> > > > > important, since will be less new stuff and maybe more fixing,
> > or we
> > > > could
> > > > > do minor releases and bug fixing releases...
> > > > > 2.- Start working on this "one repo feature".
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > > Carlos
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://semver.org/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > El dom., 31 may. 2020 a las 13:15, Christofer Dutz (<
> > > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>) escribió:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > so thankfully Carlos watched the full 1,5 hours of my release
> > video
> > > and
> > > > > > told me it was ok ... so I'll share them with you:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > https://drive.google.com/open?id=1BDKG-zPW3CoWLI0KQJDO5PGyEJQtKRb4
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In video 1 (27 Minutes) I am releasing the "compiler "
> > > > > > In video 2 (10 Minutes) I am releasing the "typedefs"
> > > > > > In video 3 (50 Minutes) I am releasing the "asjs/framework"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Most additional steps are just related to the separation of
> > the 3
> > > repos
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > If we were to merge them and I would do my refactoring to the
> > > > > > royale-maven-plugin, it would just be the steps of video 1.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I also added some background infos on what's happening in
> > which step
> > > > and
> > > > > > why I'm doing things the way I am ... pehaps it makes the
> 1,5h
> > a
> > > little
> > > > > > more educational as if I just typed in the commands ... will
> > prepare
> > > a
> > > > > > text-document with all the steps ASAP.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Chris
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Am 31.05.20, 09:29 schrieb "Yishay Weiss" <
> > yishayjobs@hotmail.com>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alex might want to confirm, but I’m pretty sure DST issue
> > was
> > > > fixed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Greg Dove<ma...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2020 1:40 AM
> > > > > > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:
> dev@royale.apache.org
> > >
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify
> things?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Chris, Harbs & others,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry I didn't reply earlier on this thread, I have been
> > very
> > > > focused
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > some intense work tasks, consuming extra hours in each
> day
> > for
> > > some
> > > > > > time
> > > > > > now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unless I misunderstood something, I think we already had
> > > consensus
> > > > on
> > > > > > top-level things like:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > a) we need the royale sdk (as3 language support +
> > application
> > > > > > framework +
> > > > > > compiler + typedefs) to continue to be usable via ant,
> > maven, npm
> > > > and
> > > > > > possibly other future build tools
> > > > > > b) we need the distribution/artifacts to be validated for
> > each of
> > > > the
> > > > > > end-user supported build tools
> > > > > > c) we need the release process to be as simple and
> > streamlined as
> > > > > > possible,
> > > > > > while still keeping quality checks in place.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is just my limited interpretation/synthesis of
> > discussions
> > > to
> > > > > > date, so
> > > > > > I hope it it makes sense. There were some expressions
> that
> > > certain
> > > > > > things
> > > > > > had to be done a certain way at (c) in order to achieve
> > (b).
> > > > > > If my expression above (representing my understanding) is
> > > correct,
> > > > > > then I
> > > > > > really don't care what tech we use to achieve (c), so
> long
> > as (a)
> > > > and
> > > > > > (b)
> > > > > > are achieved. I guess the only other thing I would add is
> > that
> > > > > > whatever we
> > > > > > use for (c) should be easy to understand and maintain,
> but
> > > perhaps
> > > > > > that is
> > > > > > inherent in the 'simple and streamlined' part of what I
> > > expressed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Chris,
> > > > > > Thanks for investing your time in this, and for your
> > proposal. If
> > > > my
> > > > > > understanding above is correct then I think your proposal
> > covers
> > > > that
> > > > > > along
> > > > > > with the general improvements in maven configurations and
> > > support.
> > > > > > I'll try to find time to watch the video in the coming
> > week.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One specific comment about: ' perhaps even help the
> > automated
> > > > testing
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > the ASJS repo.'
> > > > > > At the moment there is a RoyaleUnit ant task that Josh
> > created.
> > > If
> > > > > > RoyaleUnit could somehow be supported via maven that
> would
> > be
> > > > > awesome.
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > know you have other approaches as well for automated UI
> > testing,
> > > > but
> > > > > > RoyaleUnit permits re-use of legacy FlexUnit tests, so
> > supporting
> > > > > that
> > > > > > via
> > > > > > maven would be a major plus, I think.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Harbs,
> > > > > > Thanks for the suggestion that I participate as RM. I
> only
> > > > understand
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > current process in a very abstract sense, apart from the
> > time I
> > > > > watched
> > > > > > Chris and Carlos going through the first 7 steps.
> > > > > > I agree that, in general, it's better to understand a
> > process
> > > > before
> > > > > > decisions relating to improvements are considered for
> that
> > > process,
> > > > > > and I
> > > > > > know I do not really understand it well. But I don't
> think
> > that
> > > > needs
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > include me, and would prefer not to be RM in the near
> > term. I
> > > will
> > > > be
> > > > > > happy
> > > > > > to do this at some point, but I envisage my time being
> > quite
> > > > > > pre-occupied
> > > > > > with asjs (particularly emulation) work over the next
> > couple of
> > > > > > months, and
> > > > > > prefer to keep my limited neurons focused on that for
> now.
> > > > Basically,
> > > > > > I am
> > > > > > happy to defer to others here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As an aside, one of the issues identified in recent weeks
> > was the
> > > > DST
> > > > > > alignment issue which seemed to require DST alignment
> > between
> > > RM's
> > > > > > local
> > > > > > machine and the CI server. Perhaps that is fixed now, I
> am
> > not
> > > > sure.
> > > > > > If it
> > > > > > is not then, based on the original description of the
> > cause of
> > > that
> > > > > > problem, it might preclude me being RM until it is fixed
> > in any
> > > > case,
> > > > > > because that misalignment would hold true most of the
> year
> > for me
> > > > (I
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > consider it important to fix, but not urgent to fix
> > because we
> > > > have,
> > > > > I
> > > > > > believe, no others currently from the southern hemisphere
> > who
> > > could
> > > > > be
> > > > > > RM
> > > > > > right now anyway).
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Greg
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 4:02 AM Christofer Dutz <
> > > > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Today I just prepared my forks of royale again and did
> a
> > full
> > > > > > release of
> > > > > > > all 3 repos and did a video recording of that.
> > > > > > > I did find some minor quirks which I'll whip up a PR
> for
> > (no
> > > > > profile
> > > > > > name
> > > > > > > or directory changes).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As soon as I am finished cutting the video and removed
> > lots
> > > > minutes
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > jewl-theme-compilation stuff I'll publish the link to
> the
> > > videos
> > > > > > here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Chris
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Am 28.05.20, 18:03 schrieb "Andrew Wetmore" <
> > > cottage14@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Seems like the simplest way.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:55 PM Christofer Dutz <
> > > > > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Infra says there's nothing in-between all or
> > nothing with
> > > > > > github :-(
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So I'll probably go down the google doc route and
> > have
> > > the
> > > > > text
> > > > > > > imported
> > > > > > > > by one of you folks.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Chris
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Am 28.05.20, 17:38 schrieb "Harbs" <
> > > harbs.lists@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I’m going offline for two days so I’ll be
> > quiet for a
> > > > > > while, but
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > might be a good idea to ask infra whether they
> > have a
> > > > > solution
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > problem.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Harbs
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On May 28, 2020, at 5:36 PM, Christofer
> Dutz
> > <
> > > > > > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > well perhaps searching for some experiences
> > with
> > > this
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > my gut-feeling would make me expect to have
> > the
> > > wiki
> > > > > > content
> > > > > > > > replaced by Viagra ads ;-)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But it would be in git, so easily undoable
> > ....
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I did find this however:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.growingwiththeweb.com/2016/07/enabling-pull-requests-on-github-wikis.html
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It's less convenient way, but probably
> safer.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Chris
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Am 28.05.20, 16:25 schrieb "Harbs" <
> > > > > > harbs.lists@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hmm. That’s a problem I was not aware
> > of...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What do folks think about enabling
> public
> > > editing
> > > > of
> > > > > > > wikis?[1]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Harbs
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> On May 28, 2020, at 5:00 PM, Christofer
> > Dutz <
> > > > > > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Hi all,
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> so I just had a look ... it seems as if
> the
> > "fork"
> > > > > > feature on
> > > > > > > > github doesn't fork the wiki too ...
> > > > > > > > >> So I could create my own pages, but not
> > create PRs
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > documentation ... or I just didn't find the docs
> > on how
> > > to
> > > > do
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > >> Do you have any pointers for me?
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Chris
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Am 28.05.20, 13:55 schrieb "Piotr
> Zarzycki"
> > <
> > > > > > > > piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Chris,
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> We are not using confluence at all. We
> > are using
> > > > > Wiki
> > > > > > [1],
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > you can
> > > > > > > > >> write document in whatever place you
> > wanted to
> > > if
> > > > > you
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > comfortable
> > > > > > > > >> with wiki.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Andrew,
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Will you be willing to translate that
> > document
> > > > into
> > > > > > our Wiki
> > > > > > > > manner ?
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> [1]
> > https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> Piotr
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:43 Christofer
> Dutz
> > <
> > > > > > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > > > > > > >> napisał(a):
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>> Hi Piotr,
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> I think the Royale project could grant my
> > user
> > > > write
> > > > > > > permissions to
> > > > > > > > >>> confluence.
> > > > > > > > >>> Then I could write such a document there.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> But I could also do a google doc outside,
> > if this
> > > > is
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > convenient.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> Chris
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> Am 28.05.20, 13:39 schrieb "Piotr
> > Zarzycki" <
> > > > > > > > piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> Chris,
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> I think I would like to be after Harbs
> > and
> > > > > eventually
> > > > > > > Greg. Yes
> > > > > > > > you can
> > > > > > > > >>> send me a link, write a document with
> > > absolutely
> > > > > > EVERY step
> > > > > > > > which I
> > > > > > > > >>> have to
> > > > > > > > >>> do in order to get release done. Even
> if
> > you
> > > > think
> > > > > > that I
> > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > >>> steps
> > > > > > > > >>> like signing - you can in such places
> > point
> > > into
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > >>> document.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> I would like to be able to comment on
> > every
> > > step
> > > > to
> > > > > > > confront if I
> > > > > > > > >>> really
> > > > > > > > >>> for example had to copy/paste some
> > command or
> > > > just
> > > > > > > opposite I
> > > > > > > > had to do
> > > > > > > > >>> much more than only copy/paste.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >>> Piotr
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:27 Christofer
> > Dutz <
> > > > > > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > > > > > > >>> napisał(a):
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> Hi Piotr,
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> we could change the configuration to use
> > the
> > > jgit
> > > > > > plugin on
> > > > > > > the CI
> > > > > > > > >>> machine
> > > > > > > > >>>> and to use the default on local
> machines.
> > > > > > > > >>>> In that case you could do it on any
> > machine you
> > > > want
> > > > > > (also
> > > > > > > > windows)
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> Who does releases in which order using
> > which
> > > > tooling
> > > > > > ... I
> > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > >>> really
> > > > > > > > >>>> care ...
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> I'm just happy that there's a line
> > building up
> > > of
> > > > > > people
> > > > > > > wanting
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>> do so
> > > > > > > > >>>> and I get to use fresh releases :-)
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> If there is anything I can help with ...
> > just
> > > ping
> > > > > me
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > I'll be
> > > > > > > > >>> happy to
> > > > > > > > >>>> help.
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> Chris
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> Am 28.05.20, 13:18 schrieb "Piotr
> > Zarzycki" <
> > > > > > > > >>> piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> Hi Harbs,
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> I would like to be a release manager
> as
> > well,
> > > > but
> > > > > > using
> > > > > > > Chri's
> > > > > > > > >>>> implementation which as far as I know
> > is in
> > > > > place. I
> > > > > > > would like
> > > > > > > > >>> to use
> > > > > > > > >>>> his
> > > > > > > > >>>> mentioned 3 steps and see how much
> > things I
> > > will
> > > > > > have to
> > > > > > > do on
> > > > > > > > >>> my own
> > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > >>>> make release happen. I know that I
> will
> > have
> > > to
> > > > do
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > on Mac,
> > > > > > > > >>> cause
> > > > > > > > >>>> there
> > > > > > > > >>>> some Maven/Git/Jenkins related plugin
> > which
> > > > allows
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > > Jenkins,
> > > > > > > > >>> but it
> > > > > > > > >>>> prevents me from pushing artifacts
> from
> > > windows.
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> I have some thoughts about above
> > proposition,
> > > > but
> > > > > I
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > wait
> > > > > > > > >>> till we
> > > > > > > > >>>> all
> > > > > > > > >>>> pass trough the release process.
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >>>> Piotr
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 11:06 Christofer
> > Dutz <
> > > > > > > > >>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > > > > > > >>>> napisał(a):
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Hi Harbs,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> makes sense.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Chris
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" <
> > > > > > harbs.lists@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Hi Chris,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks for you work helping with the
> > 0.9.7
> > > > > release
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> I’m definitely open to improving the
> > > structure
> > > > > and
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>> process.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> My biggest hesitation is that I don’t
> > > > understand
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>> current
> > > > > > > > >>>> release
> > > > > > > > >>>>> process well enough. Until recently
> Alex
> > was
> > > the
> > > > > > only one
> > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > >>> really
> > > > > > > > >>>>> understood it. Yishay just went through
> > the
> > > > process
> > > > > > so he
> > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > >>> a good
> > > > > > > > >>>>> understanding now. I plan on doing
> > another
> > > > release
> > > > > > the week
> > > > > > > > >>>> following next
> > > > > > > > >>>>> (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope
> is
> > that I
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > > >>> understand it
> > > > > > > > >>>> better
> > > > > > > > >>>>> at that point. I don’t know whether
> Greg
> > Dove
> > > is
> > > > > > willing
> > > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > > >>> a
> > > > > > > > >>>> release,
> > > > > > > > >>>>> but I think it would be very valuable
> to
> > get
> > > his
> > > > > > input as
> > > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> So my proposal is that we get some
> > more of us
> > > > > > familiar
> > > > > > > > >>> with the
> > > > > > > > >>>> what
> > > > > > > > >>>>> and the why of the current process. I
> > want to
> > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > >>> was
> > > > > > > > >>>> done and
> > > > > > > > >>>>> why it was done. I don’t feel
> comfortable
> > > having
> > > > an
> > > > > > > opinion on
> > > > > > > > >>>> changing
> > > > > > > > >>>>> things until I can weigh the pros and
> > cons. I’d
> > > > > like
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >>> us to
> > > > > > > > >>>> be in
> > > > > > > > >>>>> the same position so we will be in the
> > position
> > > > of
> > > > > > building
> > > > > > > > >>>> consensus on
> > > > > > > > >>>>> changes. The reason I hope that Greg
> Dove
> > > > > > specifically
> > > > > > > does a
> > > > > > > > >>>> release is
> > > > > > > > >>>>> because I feel he’s pretty neutral on
> > > technology
> > > > > and
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > >>> he’ll
> > > > > > > > >>>> have
> > > > > > > > >>>>> good valuable input.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> So here’s my proposal:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> 1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3
> > releases
> > > in
> > > > > > rapid
> > > > > > > > >>> succession
> > > > > > > > >>>>> without making too many changes.
> > > > > > > > >>>>> 2. Let’s try and get as many of us
> > familiar
> > > > with
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >>> process as
> > > > > > > > >>>>> possible.
> > > > > > > > >>>>> 3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss
> the
> > pain
> > > > > points
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >>> what can
> > > > > > > > >>>> be
> > > > > > > > >>>>> done to improve the structure and/or
> the
> > > process
> > > > > > with pros
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >>> cons.
> > > > > > > > >>>> Maybe
> > > > > > > > >>>>> your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe
> > > something
> > > > > > else?
> > > > > > > > >>> Similar?
> > > > > > > > >>>> Don’t
> > > > > > > > >>>>> know, but I’d like to get to the point
> > where we
> > > > can
> > > > > > have an
> > > > > > > > >>>> intelligent
> > > > > > > > >>>>> discussion on the topic with different
> > points
> > > of
> > > > > > view. I
> > > > > > > don’t
> > > > > > > > >>> think
> > > > > > > > >>>> we’re
> > > > > > > > >>>>> quite there yet.
> > > > > > > > >>>>> 4. Carefully start implementing
> > changes.
> > > Making
> > > > > big
> > > > > > > > >>> changes is
> > > > > > > > >>>> often
> > > > > > > > >>>>> disruptive and is often the cause of
> > conflict.
> > > > This
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > nothing
> > > > > > > > >>>> specific to
> > > > > > > > >>>>> us, and there’s even accepted advice on
> > the
> > > > topic.
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > >>> we all
> > > > > > > > >>>> read
> > > > > > > > >>>>> and follow James Duncan Davidson's
> > “rules for
> > > > > > > > >>> revolutionaries”[1].
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> I appreciate having your proposed
> > changes to
> > > > > > ponder the
> > > > > > > > >>> next
> > > > > > > > >>>> couple of
> > > > > > > > >>>>> weeks.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> In the meantime, please by all means,
> > dive
> > > into
> > > > > > Royale
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >>> create
> > > > > > > > >>>>> issues, pull requests, let us know
> > > difficulties,
> > > > > > etc. I’ll
> > > > > > > > >>> make my
> > > > > > > > >>>> best
> > > > > > > > >>>>> effort to be as responsive as possible
> > and help
> > > > > > where I
> > > > > > > can. If
> > > > > > > > >>>> you’re
> > > > > > > > >>>>> feeling frustration, please reach out
> to
> > me on
> > > > > Slack.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Does this make sense?
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Harbs
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>> [1]
> > > > http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM,
> > Christofer Dutz
> > > <
> > > > > > > > >>>>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> congrats to the successful release of
> > 0.9.7 …
> > > it
> > > > > > greatly
> > > > > > > > >>>> simplified
> > > > > > > > >>>>> the last PLC4X release to have the
> > artifacts
> > > out
> > > > > > there in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>> wild.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> I would really like to see Royale as
> > the tool
> > > in
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > > >>> toolbox for
> > > > > > > > >>>>> building industrial UI applications as
> I
> > sort
> > > of
> > > > am
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >>> happy
> > > > > > > > >>>> with the
> > > > > > > > >>>>> other existing alternatives.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> In order to do this I know that I have
> > some
> > > > areas
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >>> expertise
> > > > > > > > >>>> I can
> > > > > > > > >>>>> offer to the project … Writing
> > ActionScript and
> > > > > MXML
> > > > > > code
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >>>> definitely not
> > > > > > > > >>>>> where I can help best.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> However I’m really good at Java, Maven
> > and
> > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > >>>> Infrastructure. I
> > > > > > > > >>>>> know that development is most active in
> > the
> > > ASJS
> > > > > > repo but I
> > > > > > > > >>> would be
> > > > > > > > >>>> happy
> > > > > > > > >>>>> to help on the other sides ... perhaps
> > even
> > > help
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > automated
> > > > > > > > >>>> testing in
> > > > > > > > >>>>> the ASJS repo.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> I would have one proposal on how to
> > really
> > > > > simplify
> > > > > > > > >>> things,
> > > > > > > > >>>> but I
> > > > > > > > >>>>> would be hesitant to start working on
> > this
> > > before
> > > > > we
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > >>> consensus
> > > > > > > > >>>> on this
> > > > > > > > >>>>> here.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> It would probably involve multiple
> > weeks of
> > > full
> > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > >>> work in
> > > > > > > > >>>> total
> > > > > > > > >>>>> to do it for me, but I would be happy
> to
> > do it,
> > > > if
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > >>> would
> > > > > > > > >>>> accept
> > > > > > > > >>>>> it in the end and you folks would be
> > willing to
> > > > > help
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>> parts
> > > > > > > > >>>> I’m not
> > > > > > > > >>>>> too deep into (Ant-, NPM build
> > adjustments). So
> > > > > > that’s why
> > > > > > > I’m
> > > > > > > > >>>> bringing
> > > > > > > > >>>>> this up here first. I know it might
> > question
> > > some
> > > > > > unwritten
> > > > > > > > >>> project
> > > > > > > > >>>> rules,
> > > > > > > > >>>>> but I would kindly ask you to not just
> > block
> > > the
> > > > > > > discussion and
> > > > > > > > >>>> perhaps
> > > > > > > > >>>>> help re-evaluating why they became
> > “project
> > > > rules”
> > > > > > and if
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>> assumptions
> > > > > > > > >>>>> were correct or still apply.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> The benefit would be:
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> * Less problems in getting set-up
> > (just
> > > clone
> > > > > one
> > > > > > > > >>> repo)
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> * Simpler release (Only need to
> > release one
> > > > > > > > >>> repository … no
> > > > > > > > >>>>> updating of version information
> > in-between)
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> * Less things that can go wrong (I
> > remember
> > > > when
> > > > > > > > >>> compiler
> > > > > > > > >>>> was
> > > > > > > > >>>>> already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest
> > wasn’t
> > > > yet …
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > >>> issues
> > > > > > > > >>>>> discussed on the list)
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> * I would use the opportunity to
> > clean up
> > > some
> > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > >>> in the
> > > > > > > > >>>>> maven build, because despite the
> probably
> > > common
> > > > > > > assumption …
> > > > > > > > >>> I’m not
> > > > > > > > >>>>> really happy with the usability of the
> > maven
> > > > build
> > > > > > from a
> > > > > > > > >>> user’s
> > > > > > > > >>>>> perspective … I think there’s great
> room
> > for
> > > > > > improvement
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> In general I would propose to merge
> all
> > 3
> > > > > > repositories
> > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > > > >>>> one.
> > > > > > > > >>>>> Right now the Maven build would
> probably
> > work
> > > > with
> > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > >>>> releases of
> > > > > > > > >>>>> the compiler or typedefs but from what
> I
> > can
> > > see
> > > > …
> > > > > > the Ant
> > > > > > > > >>> release
> > > > > > > > >>>> would
> > > > > > > > >>>>> probably not work without modification.
> > So the
> > > > > whole
> > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >>>> releasing
> > > > > > > > >>>>> separately seems to be more a
> > theoretical one.
> > > I
> > > > > > think in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>> history of
> > > > > > > > >>>>> FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done
> > once
> > > > (please
> > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > >>> if I’m
> > > > > > > > >>>>> wrong). If there are external entities
> > only
> > > > > > interested in
> > > > > > > > >>> consuming
> > > > > > > > >>>> parts
> > > > > > > > >>>>> of the project, we could build source
> > > > distribution
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > > >>>> only
> > > > > > > > >>>>> contain the parts they are interest in.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> * I propose to move the artifacts
> > needed for
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>> build but
> > > > > > > > >>>> not
> > > > > > > > >>>>> being part of the build (build-tools,
> > > > jburg-types)
> > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > >>> separate
> > > > > > > > >>>>> repository where they can be released
> > > > independently
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > don’t
> > > > > > > > >>> cause
> > > > > > > > >>>>> confusion like they are doing right
> now.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> * Then I would like to create a new
> > > repository
> > > > > > (Let’s
> > > > > > > > >>> call
> > > > > > > > >>>> it
> > > > > > > > >>>>> “royale”) which contains 3 directories:
> > > compiler,
> > > > > > typedefs
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >>> asjs
> > > > > > > > >>>> (or
> > > > > > > > >>>>> even with the current “royale-“ prefix,
> > I don’t
> > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > >>> care/mind).
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> * Now comes the biggest block … I
> > would need
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>> completely
> > > > > > > > >>>>> rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the
> > core of
> > > it
> > > > > > would be
> > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > >>> moved
> > > > > > > > >>>> to the
> > > > > > > > >>>>> new build-tools repository. This plugin
> > would
> > > > sort
> > > > > > of be an
> > > > > > > > >>> empty
> > > > > > > > >>>> skeleton
> > > > > > > > >>>>> to load compiler plugins. This is
> needed
> > as
> > > Maven
> > > > > > can’t
> > > > > > > build a
> > > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > > >>>>> where a plugin used in the project is
> > also part
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > build
> > > > > > > > >>> itself.
> > > > > > > > >>>> So we
> > > > > > > > >>>>> couldn’t build all-in-one go without
> this
> > > change.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> * Next step would be to add a new
> > > > royale-parent
> > > > > > pom
> > > > > > > > >>> in the
> > > > > > > > >>>> new
> > > > > > > > >>>>> root of the project, the 3 old parents
> > would be
> > > > > > updated to
> > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>> new
> > > > > > > > >>>>> parent and a lot of duplicated
> > configuration
> > > > could
> > > > > > be moved
> > > > > > > > >>> there,
> > > > > > > > >>>> hereby
> > > > > > > > >>>>> greatly simplifying the 3 old root
> poms.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> A migration plan, could be to :
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> * create a feature-branch in all 3
> > > > repositories
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> * create two new repos “royale” and
> > > > > > > > >>> “royale-build-tools” (or
> > > > > > > > >>>>> whatever you want to name them)
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> * Start with using git submodules to
> > import
> > > > the
> > > > > 3
> > > > > > > > >>> branches
> > > > > > > > >>>> into
> > > > > > > > >>>>> the new (I know submodules really suck,
> > but
> > > they
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > only be
> > > > > > > > >>>> needed until
> > > > > > > > >>>>> everything is finished)
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> * I would move/copy the build tools
> > to the
> > > new
> > > > > > repo
> > > > > > > > >>> and
> > > > > > > > >>>> start
> > > > > > > > >>>>> working on the new maven plugin
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> * Then I would need to update the
> old
> > > compiler
> > > > > > repo to
> > > > > > > > >>>> produce
> > > > > > > > >>>>> something I can use as
> > royale-maven-plugin
> > > > plugins
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would update
> the
> > > > typedefs
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>> use the
> > > > > > > > >>>> new
> > > > > > > > >>>>> plugin
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would update
> > the asjs
> > > > repo
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>> use the
> > > > > > > > >>>> new
> > > > > > > > >>>>> plugin
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> * Then I would add the new
> > royale-parent pom
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would simplify
> > and
> > > > > > deduplicate
> > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>>> configuration
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> * Now I would definitely need some
> > help with
> > > > > > > > >>> adjusting the
> > > > > > > > >>>> Ant
> > > > > > > > >>>>> and possibly NPM build to these changes
> > (Most
> > > of
> > > > > them
> > > > > > > should be
> > > > > > > > >>>>> profile-names and maybe directory names
> > or
> > > paths)
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> * The last thing that would be
> > required to
> > > be
> > > > > > done now
> > > > > > > > >>>> would be
> > > > > > > > >>>>> to remove the submodules in the
> “royale”
> > > > repository
> > > > > > and to
> > > > > > > > >>> import
> > > > > > > > >>>> the real
> > > > > > > > >>>>> repos
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> * After this the 3 old repos could
> be
> > > archived
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> I am really looking forward to some
> open
> > > > > discussion
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >>> this.
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Chris
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> --
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> Piotr Zarzycki
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> Patreon: *
> > > https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > > > > > >>>> <
> https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > >*
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> Piotr Zarzycki
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> Patreon: *
> > > https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > > > > > >>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> >*
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Piotr Zarzycki
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Patreon: *
> > https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > > > > > >> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> >*
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Andrew Wetmore
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Carlos Rovira
> > > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carlos Rovira
> > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Posted by Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>.
Chris,
Yes I do understand that those "3 steps" are separated for each repository,
so overall will be more.
pon., 1 cze 2020 o 21:14 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
napisał(a):
> Hi Piotr,
>
> let me clarify ... the in total 3 step would work in its final
> implementation.
> Right now it's 3 for the compiler, 5 for the typedefs and 5 for the
> framework.
>
> Just to set the expectations right ... but that's a total of 13 steps and
> not a total
> of 13 partially automated and even more manual steps.
>
> Chris
>
> Am 01.06.20, 11:43 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <pi...@gmail.com>:
>
> Carlos,
>
> I do have a good knowledge about our current release process, but what
> Chris's proposed is a different approach - That approach I wanted to
> try,
> cause as far as I understand him - everything is in place and anyone
> can
> right now do 3 steps release.
>
> Chris,
>
> What do you mean by "cleaning up the maven plugin" ? Why do you wanted
> to
> do this before I have tried your way of releasing SDK ?
>
> How it influence whole process ?
>
> What if we reject putting together repository in 1 - Does your
> cleaning up
> change something - that you will have to revert later ?
>
> Thanks,
> Piotr
>
> pon., 1 cze 2020 o 11:21 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> napisał(a):
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > that's ok for me too. Just was to expose what I think will be the
> most
> > optimal trip, since I thought you had a good knowledge of actual
> state of
> > things and what will be the improvements. But if you think you need
> to
> > follow up that's fine too.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > El lun., 1 jun. 2020 a las 10:24, Christofer Dutz (<
> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>) escribió:
> >
> > > Hi Piotr,
> > >
> > > Makes perfect sense to me. guess I can start with the Royale-unit
> > surefire
> > > support first. I can also start cleaning up the maven plugin
> without any
> > of
> > > the big steps. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
> > >
> > > So I would also suggest doing small steps, to keep all on board.
> > >
> > > The only reason I brought up this discussion was to describe the
> final
> > > goal for me.
> > >
> > >
> > > Chris
> > > ________________________________
> > > Von: Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>
> > > Gesendet: Montag, 1. Juni 2020 09:43
> > > An: Apache Royale Development <de...@royale.apache.org>
> > > Betreff: Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
> > >
> > > Carlos,
> > >
> > > Like I stated I wanted to understand what Chris did, so I will be
> the
> > next
> > > RM after Harbs. I'm going to use Chris's improvements and see what
> > exactly
> > > they means.
> > >
> > > I didn't check his video but I hope I have there complementary
> > > instructions. I'm familiar with Maven - I expect that all of that
> will
> > take
> > > max 1 day and I will have RC1. If not we need to improve before
> any Big
> > > steps described here.
> > >
> > > I do have couple of some sort of requirements towards those steps
> if they
> > > are really going to happen - before I talk about them I'm going to
> be RM.
> > >
> > > I hope it makes sense to you.
> > >
> > > Piotr
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2020, 9:36 AM Carlos Rovira <
> carlosrovira@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > just to add to this proposal thread expressing my opinion. I
> think this
> > > > change will have a huge positive impact in the project:
> > > >
> > > > 1.- Reduce repos from 3 to just 1, so reducing all actions and
> overhead
> > > all
> > > > that implies.
> > > > 2.- Builds will be much more easy since all is contained in one
> repo
> > > > instead of gathering from three. Right now builds in one repo
> must
> > count
> > > > with the build produced by other(s) in the chain of execution.
> > > > 3.- Remove duplicated config that could be just in one place
> reducing
> > > > complexity. Right now many configs are duplicated in each repo
> due to
> > the
> > > > actual 3 repo layout.
> > > > 4.- Releases will turn just to 3 commands on a terminal what
> will be a
> > > big
> > > > point for all RMs and the project allowing us to release much
> more
> > easy.
> > > > 5.- Less commands means less errors and more automation
> > > > 6.- Times to release will cut under the current 1h 30'' (as you
> can
> > defer
> > > > from the sum of the times of each video posted by Chris).
> > > > 7.- The process will continue improving towards a maven
> compliant build
> > > and
> > > > release process with all the benefits that following a standard
> process
> > > > means and how all of that means to the actual Apache build and
> release
> > > > process.
> > > > 8.- Improving over time will be more easy too.
> > > >
> > > > For me this is one of the key points for reaching 1.0, since
> will mean
> > we
> > > > are really prepared to do monthly (or bi-monthly if we want)
> releases
> > of
> > > > Royale.
> > > >
> > > > About others as RMs. I think is needed to understand the actual
> process
> > > and
> > > > know what will mean to improve this way. So I think is good
> Harbs do
> > the
> > > > next release in the actual state to gain that knowledge. In
> exchange I
> > > > think Piotr already knows very close since he did 0.9.6, so
> don't think
> > > is
> > > > needed.
> > > >
> > > > I think the optimal time frame to work on this could be:
> > > >
> > > > 1.- Harbs work this June on release. Here we could improve on
> version
> > > > numbers [1], since we are adding lots of stuff in each release
> and the
> > > bug
> > > > fixing is implied. Maybe as we settle third version numbers will
> be
> > more
> > > > important, since will be less new stuff and maybe more fixing,
> or we
> > > could
> > > > do minor releases and bug fixing releases...
> > > > 2.- Start working on this "one repo feature".
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > Carlos
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://semver.org/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > El dom., 31 may. 2020 a las 13:15, Christofer Dutz (<
> > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>) escribió:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > so thankfully Carlos watched the full 1,5 hours of my release
> video
> > and
> > > > > told me it was ok ... so I'll share them with you:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1BDKG-zPW3CoWLI0KQJDO5PGyEJQtKRb4
> > > > >
> > > > > In video 1 (27 Minutes) I am releasing the "compiler "
> > > > > In video 2 (10 Minutes) I am releasing the "typedefs"
> > > > > In video 3 (50 Minutes) I am releasing the "asjs/framework"
> > > > >
> > > > > Most additional steps are just related to the separation of
> the 3
> > repos
> > > > > ...
> > > > > If we were to merge them and I would do my refactoring to the
> > > > > royale-maven-plugin, it would just be the steps of video 1.
> > > > >
> > > > > I also added some background infos on what's happening in
> which step
> > > and
> > > > > why I'm doing things the way I am ... pehaps it makes the 1,5h
> a
> > little
> > > > > more educational as if I just typed in the commands ... will
> prepare
> > a
> > > > > text-document with all the steps ASAP.
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Am 31.05.20, 09:29 schrieb "Yishay Weiss" <
> yishayjobs@hotmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > Alex might want to confirm, but I’m pretty sure DST issue
> was
> > > fixed.
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Greg Dove<ma...@gmail.com>
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2020 1:40 AM
> > > > > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org
> >
> > > > > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris, Harbs & others,
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry I didn't reply earlier on this thread, I have been
> very
> > > focused
> > > > > on
> > > > > some intense work tasks, consuming extra hours in each day
> for
> > some
> > > > > time
> > > > > now.
> > > > >
> > > > > Unless I misunderstood something, I think we already had
> > consensus
> > > on
> > > > > top-level things like:
> > > > >
> > > > > a) we need the royale sdk (as3 language support +
> application
> > > > > framework +
> > > > > compiler + typedefs) to continue to be usable via ant,
> maven, npm
> > > and
> > > > > possibly other future build tools
> > > > > b) we need the distribution/artifacts to be validated for
> each of
> > > the
> > > > > end-user supported build tools
> > > > > c) we need the release process to be as simple and
> streamlined as
> > > > > possible,
> > > > > while still keeping quality checks in place.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is just my limited interpretation/synthesis of
> discussions
> > to
> > > > > date, so
> > > > > I hope it it makes sense. There were some expressions that
> > certain
> > > > > things
> > > > > had to be done a certain way at (c) in order to achieve
> (b).
> > > > > If my expression above (representing my understanding) is
> > correct,
> > > > > then I
> > > > > really don't care what tech we use to achieve (c), so long
> as (a)
> > > and
> > > > > (b)
> > > > > are achieved. I guess the only other thing I would add is
> that
> > > > > whatever we
> > > > > use for (c) should be easy to understand and maintain, but
> > perhaps
> > > > > that is
> > > > > inherent in the 'simple and streamlined' part of what I
> > expressed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris,
> > > > > Thanks for investing your time in this, and for your
> proposal. If
> > > my
> > > > > understanding above is correct then I think your proposal
> covers
> > > that
> > > > > along
> > > > > with the general improvements in maven configurations and
> > support.
> > > > > I'll try to find time to watch the video in the coming
> week.
> > > > >
> > > > > One specific comment about: ' perhaps even help the
> automated
> > > testing
> > > > > in
> > > > > the ASJS repo.'
> > > > > At the moment there is a RoyaleUnit ant task that Josh
> created.
> > If
> > > > > RoyaleUnit could somehow be supported via maven that would
> be
> > > > awesome.
> > > > > I
> > > > > know you have other approaches as well for automated UI
> testing,
> > > but
> > > > > RoyaleUnit permits re-use of legacy FlexUnit tests, so
> supporting
> > > > that
> > > > > via
> > > > > maven would be a major plus, I think.
> > > > >
> > > > > Harbs,
> > > > > Thanks for the suggestion that I participate as RM. I only
> > > understand
> > > > > the
> > > > > current process in a very abstract sense, apart from the
> time I
> > > > watched
> > > > > Chris and Carlos going through the first 7 steps.
> > > > > I agree that, in general, it's better to understand a
> process
> > > before
> > > > > decisions relating to improvements are considered for that
> > process,
> > > > > and I
> > > > > know I do not really understand it well. But I don't think
> that
> > > needs
> > > > > to
> > > > > include me, and would prefer not to be RM in the near
> term. I
> > will
> > > be
> > > > > happy
> > > > > to do this at some point, but I envisage my time being
> quite
> > > > > pre-occupied
> > > > > with asjs (particularly emulation) work over the next
> couple of
> > > > > months, and
> > > > > prefer to keep my limited neurons focused on that for now.
> > > Basically,
> > > > > I am
> > > > > happy to defer to others here.
> > > > >
> > > > > As an aside, one of the issues identified in recent weeks
> was the
> > > DST
> > > > > alignment issue which seemed to require DST alignment
> between
> > RM's
> > > > > local
> > > > > machine and the CI server. Perhaps that is fixed now, I am
> not
> > > sure.
> > > > > If it
> > > > > is not then, based on the original description of the
> cause of
> > that
> > > > > problem, it might preclude me being RM until it is fixed
> in any
> > > case,
> > > > > because that misalignment would hold true most of the year
> for me
> > > (I
> > > > > would
> > > > > consider it important to fix, but not urgent to fix
> because we
> > > have,
> > > > I
> > > > > believe, no others currently from the southern hemisphere
> who
> > could
> > > > be
> > > > > RM
> > > > > right now anyway).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Greg
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 4:02 AM Christofer Dutz <
> > > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Today I just prepared my forks of royale again and did a
> full
> > > > > release of
> > > > > > all 3 repos and did a video recording of that.
> > > > > > I did find some minor quirks which I'll whip up a PR for
> (no
> > > > profile
> > > > > name
> > > > > > or directory changes).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As soon as I am finished cutting the video and removed
> lots
> > > minutes
> > > > > of
> > > > > > jewl-theme-compilation stuff I'll publish the link to the
> > videos
> > > > > here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Chris
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Am 28.05.20, 18:03 schrieb "Andrew Wetmore" <
> > cottage14@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Seems like the simplest way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:55 PM Christofer Dutz <
> > > > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Infra says there's nothing in-between all or
> nothing with
> > > > > github :-(
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So I'll probably go down the google doc route and
> have
> > the
> > > > text
> > > > > > imported
> > > > > > > by one of you folks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Chris
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Am 28.05.20, 17:38 schrieb "Harbs" <
> > harbs.lists@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I’m going offline for two days so I’ll be
> quiet for a
> > > > > while, but
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > might be a good idea to ask infra whether they
> have a
> > > > solution
> > > > > to
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > problem.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Harbs
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On May 28, 2020, at 5:36 PM, Christofer Dutz
> <
> > > > > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > well perhaps searching for some experiences
> with
> > this
> > > > ...
> > > > > > > > my gut-feeling would make me expect to have
> the
> > wiki
> > > > > content
> > > > > > > replaced by Viagra ads ;-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But it would be in git, so easily undoable
> ....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I did find this however:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.growingwiththeweb.com/2016/07/enabling-pull-requests-on-github-wikis.html
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's less convenient way, but probably safer.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Chris
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Am 28.05.20, 16:25 schrieb "Harbs" <
> > > > > harbs.lists@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hmm. That’s a problem I was not aware
> of...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What do folks think about enabling public
> > editing
> > > of
> > > > > > wikis?[1]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Harbs
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> On May 28, 2020, at 5:00 PM, Christofer
> Dutz <
> > > > > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Hi all,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> so I just had a look ... it seems as if the
> "fork"
> > > > > feature on
> > > > > > > github doesn't fork the wiki too ...
> > > > > > > >> So I could create my own pages, but not
> create PRs
> > > for
> > > > > > > documentation ... or I just didn't find the docs
> on how
> > to
> > > do
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > > >> Do you have any pointers for me?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Chris
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Am 28.05.20, 13:55 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki"
> <
> > > > > > > piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Chris,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> We are not using confluence at all. We
> are using
> > > > Wiki
> > > > > [1],
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > you can
> > > > > > > >> write document in whatever place you
> wanted to
> > if
> > > > you
> > > > > are
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > comfortable
> > > > > > > >> with wiki.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Andrew,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Will you be willing to translate that
> document
> > > into
> > > > > our Wiki
> > > > > > > manner ?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> [1]
> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >> Piotr
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:43 Christofer Dutz
> <
> > > > > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > > > > > >> napisał(a):
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> Hi Piotr,
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> I think the Royale project could grant my
> user
> > > write
> > > > > > permissions to
> > > > > > > >>> confluence.
> > > > > > > >>> Then I could write such a document there.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> But I could also do a google doc outside,
> if this
> > > is
> > > > > more
> > > > > > > convenient.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Chris
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Am 28.05.20, 13:39 schrieb "Piotr
> Zarzycki" <
> > > > > > > piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Chris,
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> I think I would like to be after Harbs
> and
> > > > eventually
> > > > > > Greg. Yes
> > > > > > > you can
> > > > > > > >>> send me a link, write a document with
> > absolutely
> > > > > EVERY step
> > > > > > > which I
> > > > > > > >>> have to
> > > > > > > >>> do in order to get release done. Even if
> you
> > > think
> > > > > that I
> > > > > > know
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > >>> steps
> > > > > > > >>> like signing - you can in such places
> point
> > into
> > > > some
> > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > >>> document.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> I would like to be able to comment on
> every
> > step
> > > to
> > > > > > confront if I
> > > > > > > >>> really
> > > > > > > >>> for example had to copy/paste some
> command or
> > > just
> > > > > > opposite I
> > > > > > > had to do
> > > > > > > >>> much more than only copy/paste.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >>> Piotr
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:27 Christofer
> Dutz <
> > > > > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > > > > > >>> napisał(a):
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Hi Piotr,
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> we could change the configuration to use
> the
> > jgit
> > > > > plugin on
> > > > > > the CI
> > > > > > > >>> machine
> > > > > > > >>>> and to use the default on local machines.
> > > > > > > >>>> In that case you could do it on any
> machine you
> > > want
> > > > > (also
> > > > > > > windows)
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Who does releases in which order using
> which
> > > tooling
> > > > > ... I
> > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > >>> really
> > > > > > > >>>> care ...
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> I'm just happy that there's a line
> building up
> > of
> > > > > people
> > > > > > wanting
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>> do so
> > > > > > > >>>> and I get to use fresh releases :-)
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> If there is anything I can help with ...
> just
> > ping
> > > > me
> > > > > and
> > > > > > I'll be
> > > > > > > >>> happy to
> > > > > > > >>>> help.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Chris
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Am 28.05.20, 13:18 schrieb "Piotr
> Zarzycki" <
> > > > > > > >>> piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Hi Harbs,
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> I would like to be a release manager as
> well,
> > > but
> > > > > using
> > > > > > Chri's
> > > > > > > >>>> implementation which as far as I know
> is in
> > > > place. I
> > > > > > would like
> > > > > > > >>> to use
> > > > > > > >>>> his
> > > > > > > >>>> mentioned 3 steps and see how much
> things I
> > will
> > > > > have to
> > > > > > do on
> > > > > > > >>> my own
> > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>> make release happen. I know that I will
> have
> > to
> > > do
> > > > > that
> > > > > > on Mac,
> > > > > > > >>> cause
> > > > > > > >>>> there
> > > > > > > >>>> some Maven/Git/Jenkins related plugin
> which
> > > allows
> > > > > use
> > > > > > Jenkins,
> > > > > > > >>> but it
> > > > > > > >>>> prevents me from pushing artifacts from
> > windows.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> I have some thoughts about above
> proposition,
> > > but
> > > > I
> > > > > will
> > > > > > wait
> > > > > > > >>> till we
> > > > > > > >>>> all
> > > > > > > >>>> pass trough the release process.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >>>> Piotr
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 11:06 Christofer
> Dutz <
> > > > > > > >>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > > > > > >>>> napisał(a):
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Hi Harbs,
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> makes sense.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Chris
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" <
> > > > > harbs.lists@gmail.com
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Hi Chris,
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks for you work helping with the
> 0.9.7
> > > > release
> > > > > as
> > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> I’m definitely open to improving the
> > structure
> > > > and
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> process.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> My biggest hesitation is that I don’t
> > > understand
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> current
> > > > > > > >>>> release
> > > > > > > >>>>> process well enough. Until recently Alex
> was
> > the
> > > > > only one
> > > > > > who
> > > > > > > >>> really
> > > > > > > >>>>> understood it. Yishay just went through
> the
> > > process
> > > > > so he
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > > >>> a good
> > > > > > > >>>>> understanding now. I plan on doing
> another
> > > release
> > > > > the week
> > > > > > > >>>> following next
> > > > > > > >>>>> (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope is
> that I
> > > > will
> > > > > > > >>> understand it
> > > > > > > >>>> better
> > > > > > > >>>>> at that point. I don’t know whether Greg
> Dove
> > is
> > > > > willing
> > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > >>> a
> > > > > > > >>>> release,
> > > > > > > >>>>> but I think it would be very valuable to
> get
> > his
> > > > > input as
> > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> So my proposal is that we get some
> more of us
> > > > > familiar
> > > > > > > >>> with the
> > > > > > > >>>> what
> > > > > > > >>>>> and the why of the current process. I
> want to
> > > > > understand
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > >>> was
> > > > > > > >>>> done and
> > > > > > > >>>>> why it was done. I don’t feel comfortable
> > having
> > > an
> > > > > > opinion on
> > > > > > > >>>> changing
> > > > > > > >>>>> things until I can weigh the pros and
> cons. I’d
> > > > like
> > > > > more
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >>> us to
> > > > > > > >>>> be in
> > > > > > > >>>>> the same position so we will be in the
> position
> > > of
> > > > > building
> > > > > > > >>>> consensus on
> > > > > > > >>>>> changes. The reason I hope that Greg Dove
> > > > > specifically
> > > > > > does a
> > > > > > > >>>> release is
> > > > > > > >>>>> because I feel he’s pretty neutral on
> > technology
> > > > and
> > > > > I
> > > > > > think
> > > > > > > >>> he’ll
> > > > > > > >>>> have
> > > > > > > >>>>> good valuable input.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> So here’s my proposal:
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> 1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3
> releases
> > in
> > > > > rapid
> > > > > > > >>> succession
> > > > > > > >>>>> without making too many changes.
> > > > > > > >>>>> 2. Let’s try and get as many of us
> familiar
> > > with
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > >>> process as
> > > > > > > >>>>> possible.
> > > > > > > >>>>> 3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss the
> pain
> > > > points
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > >>> what can
> > > > > > > >>>> be
> > > > > > > >>>>> done to improve the structure and/or the
> > process
> > > > > with pros
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >>> cons.
> > > > > > > >>>> Maybe
> > > > > > > >>>>> your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe
> > something
> > > > > else?
> > > > > > > >>> Similar?
> > > > > > > >>>> Don’t
> > > > > > > >>>>> know, but I’d like to get to the point
> where we
> > > can
> > > > > have an
> > > > > > > >>>> intelligent
> > > > > > > >>>>> discussion on the topic with different
> points
> > of
> > > > > view. I
> > > > > > don’t
> > > > > > > >>> think
> > > > > > > >>>> we’re
> > > > > > > >>>>> quite there yet.
> > > > > > > >>>>> 4. Carefully start implementing
> changes.
> > Making
> > > > big
> > > > > > > >>> changes is
> > > > > > > >>>> often
> > > > > > > >>>>> disruptive and is often the cause of
> conflict.
> > > This
> > > > > is
> > > > > > nothing
> > > > > > > >>>> specific to
> > > > > > > >>>>> us, and there’s even accepted advice on
> the
> > > topic.
> > > > I
> > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > >>> we all
> > > > > > > >>>> read
> > > > > > > >>>>> and follow James Duncan Davidson's
> “rules for
> > > > > > > >>> revolutionaries”[1].
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> I appreciate having your proposed
> changes to
> > > > > ponder the
> > > > > > > >>> next
> > > > > > > >>>> couple of
> > > > > > > >>>>> weeks.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> In the meantime, please by all means,
> dive
> > into
> > > > > Royale
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >>> create
> > > > > > > >>>>> issues, pull requests, let us know
> > difficulties,
> > > > > etc. I’ll
> > > > > > > >>> make my
> > > > > > > >>>> best
> > > > > > > >>>>> effort to be as responsive as possible
> and help
> > > > > where I
> > > > > > can. If
> > > > > > > >>>> you’re
> > > > > > > >>>>> feeling frustration, please reach out to
> me on
> > > > Slack.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Does this make sense?
> > > > > > > >>>>> Harbs
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> [1]
> > > http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries
> > > > <
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM,
> Christofer Dutz
> > <
> > > > > > > >>>>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> congrats to the successful release of
> 0.9.7 …
> > it
> > > > > greatly
> > > > > > > >>>> simplified
> > > > > > > >>>>> the last PLC4X release to have the
> artifacts
> > out
> > > > > there in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> wild.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> I would really like to see Royale as
> the tool
> > in
> > > > my
> > > > > > > >>> toolbox for
> > > > > > > >>>>> building industrial UI applications as I
> sort
> > of
> > > am
> > > > > not
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >>> happy
> > > > > > > >>>> with the
> > > > > > > >>>>> other existing alternatives.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> In order to do this I know that I have
> some
> > > areas
> > > > of
> > > > > > > >>> expertise
> > > > > > > >>>> I can
> > > > > > > >>>>> offer to the project … Writing
> ActionScript and
> > > > MXML
> > > > > code
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >>>> definitely not
> > > > > > > >>>>> where I can help best.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> However I’m really good at Java, Maven
> and
> > > Apache
> > > > > > > >>>> Infrastructure. I
> > > > > > > >>>>> know that development is most active in
> the
> > ASJS
> > > > > repo but I
> > > > > > > >>> would be
> > > > > > > >>>> happy
> > > > > > > >>>>> to help on the other sides ... perhaps
> even
> > help
> > > > the
> > > > > > automated
> > > > > > > >>>> testing in
> > > > > > > >>>>> the ASJS repo.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> I would have one proposal on how to
> really
> > > > simplify
> > > > > > > >>> things,
> > > > > > > >>>> but I
> > > > > > > >>>>> would be hesitant to start working on
> this
> > before
> > > > we
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > >>> consensus
> > > > > > > >>>> on this
> > > > > > > >>>>> here.
> > > > > > > >>>>>> It would probably involve multiple
> weeks of
> > full
> > > > > time
> > > > > > > >>> work in
> > > > > > > >>>> total
> > > > > > > >>>>> to do it for me, but I would be happy to
> do it,
> > > if
> > > > > the
> > > > > > project
> > > > > > > >>> would
> > > > > > > >>>> accept
> > > > > > > >>>>> it in the end and you folks would be
> willing to
> > > > help
> > > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> parts
> > > > > > > >>>> I’m not
> > > > > > > >>>>> too deep into (Ant-, NPM build
> adjustments). So
> > > > > that’s why
> > > > > > I’m
> > > > > > > >>>> bringing
> > > > > > > >>>>> this up here first. I know it might
> question
> > some
> > > > > unwritten
> > > > > > > >>> project
> > > > > > > >>>> rules,
> > > > > > > >>>>> but I would kindly ask you to not just
> block
> > the
> > > > > > discussion and
> > > > > > > >>>> perhaps
> > > > > > > >>>>> help re-evaluating why they became
> “project
> > > rules”
> > > > > and if
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>> assumptions
> > > > > > > >>>>> were correct or still apply.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> The benefit would be:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> * Less problems in getting set-up
> (just
> > clone
> > > > one
> > > > > > > >>> repo)
> > > > > > > >>>>>> * Simpler release (Only need to
> release one
> > > > > > > >>> repository … no
> > > > > > > >>>>> updating of version information
> in-between)
> > > > > > > >>>>>> * Less things that can go wrong (I
> remember
> > > when
> > > > > > > >>> compiler
> > > > > > > >>>> was
> > > > > > > >>>>> already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest
> wasn’t
> > > yet …
> > > > > there
> > > > > > were
> > > > > > > >>> issues
> > > > > > > >>>>> discussed on the list)
> > > > > > > >>>>>> * I would use the opportunity to
> clean up
> > some
> > > > > things
> > > > > > > >>> in the
> > > > > > > >>>>> maven build, because despite the probably
> > common
> > > > > > assumption …
> > > > > > > >>> I’m not
> > > > > > > >>>>> really happy with the usability of the
> maven
> > > build
> > > > > from a
> > > > > > > >>> user’s
> > > > > > > >>>>> perspective … I think there’s great room
> for
> > > > > improvement
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> In general I would propose to merge all
> 3
> > > > > repositories
> > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > > >>>> one.
> > > > > > > >>>>> Right now the Maven build would probably
> work
> > > with
> > > > > > different
> > > > > > > >>>> releases of
> > > > > > > >>>>> the compiler or typedefs but from what I
> can
> > see
> > > …
> > > > > the Ant
> > > > > > > >>> release
> > > > > > > >>>> would
> > > > > > > >>>>> probably not work without modification.
> So the
> > > > whole
> > > > > idea
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >>>> releasing
> > > > > > > >>>>> separately seems to be more a
> theoretical one.
> > I
> > > > > think in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>> history of
> > > > > > > >>>>> FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done
> once
> > > (please
> > > > > correct
> > > > > > me
> > > > > > > >>> if I’m
> > > > > > > >>>>> wrong). If there are external entities
> only
> > > > > interested in
> > > > > > > >>> consuming
> > > > > > > >>>> parts
> > > > > > > >>>>> of the project, we could build source
> > > distribution
> > > > > for
> > > > > > these
> > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > >>>> only
> > > > > > > >>>>> contain the parts they are interest in.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> * I propose to move the artifacts
> needed for
> > > the
> > > > > > > >>> build but
> > > > > > > >>>> not
> > > > > > > >>>>> being part of the build (build-tools,
> > > jburg-types)
> > > > > into a
> > > > > > > >>> separate
> > > > > > > >>>>> repository where they can be released
> > > independently
> > > > > and
> > > > > > don’t
> > > > > > > >>> cause
> > > > > > > >>>>> confusion like they are doing right now.
> > > > > > > >>>>>> * Then I would like to create a new
> > repository
> > > > > (Let’s
> > > > > > > >>> call
> > > > > > > >>>> it
> > > > > > > >>>>> “royale”) which contains 3 directories:
> > compiler,
> > > > > typedefs
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >>> asjs
> > > > > > > >>>> (or
> > > > > > > >>>>> even with the current “royale-“ prefix,
> I don’t
> > > > > really
> > > > > > > >>> care/mind).
> > > > > > > >>>>>> * Now comes the biggest block … I
> would need
> > > to
> > > > > > > >>> completely
> > > > > > > >>>>> rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the
> core of
> > it
> > > > > would be
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > > >>> moved
> > > > > > > >>>> to the
> > > > > > > >>>>> new build-tools repository. This plugin
> would
> > > sort
> > > > > of be an
> > > > > > > >>> empty
> > > > > > > >>>> skeleton
> > > > > > > >>>>> to load compiler plugins. This is needed
> as
> > Maven
> > > > > can’t
> > > > > > build a
> > > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > > >>>>> where a plugin used in the project is
> also part
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > build
> > > > > > > >>> itself.
> > > > > > > >>>> So we
> > > > > > > >>>>> couldn’t build all-in-one go without this
> > change.
> > > > > > > >>>>>> * Next step would be to add a new
> > > royale-parent
> > > > > pom
> > > > > > > >>> in the
> > > > > > > >>>> new
> > > > > > > >>>>> root of the project, the 3 old parents
> would be
> > > > > updated to
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > >>>> new
> > > > > > > >>>>> parent and a lot of duplicated
> configuration
> > > could
> > > > > be moved
> > > > > > > >>> there,
> > > > > > > >>>> hereby
> > > > > > > >>>>> greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> A migration plan, could be to :
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> * create a feature-branch in all 3
> > > repositories
> > > > > > > >>>>>> * create two new repos “royale” and
> > > > > > > >>> “royale-build-tools” (or
> > > > > > > >>>>> whatever you want to name them)
> > > > > > > >>>>>> * Start with using git submodules to
> import
> > > the
> > > > 3
> > > > > > > >>> branches
> > > > > > > >>>> into
> > > > > > > >>>>> the new (I know submodules really suck,
> but
> > they
> > > > > would
> > > > > > only be
> > > > > > > >>>> needed until
> > > > > > > >>>>> everything is finished)
> > > > > > > >>>>>> * I would move/copy the build tools
> to the
> > new
> > > > > repo
> > > > > > > >>> and
> > > > > > > >>>> start
> > > > > > > >>>>> working on the new maven plugin
> > > > > > > >>>>>> * Then I would need to update the old
> > compiler
> > > > > repo to
> > > > > > > >>>> produce
> > > > > > > >>>>> something I can use as
> royale-maven-plugin
> > > plugins
> > > > > > > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the
> > > typedefs
> > > > to
> > > > > > > >>> use the
> > > > > > > >>>> new
> > > > > > > >>>>> plugin
> > > > > > > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would update
> the asjs
> > > repo
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>> use the
> > > > > > > >>>> new
> > > > > > > >>>>> plugin
> > > > > > > >>>>>> * Then I would add the new
> royale-parent pom
> > > > > > > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would simplify
> and
> > > > > deduplicate
> > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>> configuration
> > > > > > > >>>>>> * Now I would definitely need some
> help with
> > > > > > > >>> adjusting the
> > > > > > > >>>> Ant
> > > > > > > >>>>> and possibly NPM build to these changes
> (Most
> > of
> > > > them
> > > > > > should be
> > > > > > > >>>>> profile-names and maybe directory names
> or
> > paths)
> > > > > > > >>>>>> * The last thing that would be
> required to
> > be
> > > > > done now
> > > > > > > >>>> would be
> > > > > > > >>>>> to remove the submodules in the “royale”
> > > repository
> > > > > and to
> > > > > > > >>> import
> > > > > > > >>>> the real
> > > > > > > >>>>> repos
> > > > > > > >>>>>> * After this the 3 old repos could be
> > archived
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> I am really looking forward to some open
> > > > discussion
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > >>> this.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Chris
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> --
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Piotr Zarzycki
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Patreon: *
> > https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > > > > >>>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> >*
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Piotr Zarzycki
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Patreon: *
> > https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > > > > >>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Piotr Zarzycki
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Patreon: *
> https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > > > > >> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Andrew Wetmore
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Carlos Rovira
> > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>
>
--
Piotr Zarzycki
Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
Hi Piotr,
let me clarify ... the in total 3 step would work in its final implementation.
Right now it's 3 for the compiler, 5 for the typedefs and 5 for the framework.
Just to set the expectations right ... but that's a total of 13 steps and not a total
of 13 partially automated and even more manual steps.
Chris
Am 01.06.20, 11:43 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <pi...@gmail.com>:
Carlos,
I do have a good knowledge about our current release process, but what
Chris's proposed is a different approach - That approach I wanted to try,
cause as far as I understand him - everything is in place and anyone can
right now do 3 steps release.
Chris,
What do you mean by "cleaning up the maven plugin" ? Why do you wanted to
do this before I have tried your way of releasing SDK ?
How it influence whole process ?
What if we reject putting together repository in 1 - Does your cleaning up
change something - that you will have to revert later ?
Thanks,
Piotr
pon., 1 cze 2020 o 11:21 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org> napisał(a):
> Hi,
>
> that's ok for me too. Just was to expose what I think will be the most
> optimal trip, since I thought you had a good knowledge of actual state of
> things and what will be the improvements. But if you think you need to
> follow up that's fine too.
>
>
>
>
> El lun., 1 jun. 2020 a las 10:24, Christofer Dutz (<
> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>) escribió:
>
> > Hi Piotr,
> >
> > Makes perfect sense to me. guess I can start with the Royale-unit
> surefire
> > support first. I can also start cleaning up the maven plugin without any
> of
> > the big steps. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
> >
> > So I would also suggest doing small steps, to keep all on board.
> >
> > The only reason I brought up this discussion was to describe the final
> > goal for me.
> >
> >
> > Chris
> > ________________________________
> > Von: Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>
> > Gesendet: Montag, 1. Juni 2020 09:43
> > An: Apache Royale Development <de...@royale.apache.org>
> > Betreff: Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
> >
> > Carlos,
> >
> > Like I stated I wanted to understand what Chris did, so I will be the
> next
> > RM after Harbs. I'm going to use Chris's improvements and see what
> exactly
> > they means.
> >
> > I didn't check his video but I hope I have there complementary
> > instructions. I'm familiar with Maven - I expect that all of that will
> take
> > max 1 day and I will have RC1. If not we need to improve before any Big
> > steps described here.
> >
> > I do have couple of some sort of requirements towards those steps if they
> > are really going to happen - before I talk about them I'm going to be RM.
> >
> > I hope it makes sense to you.
> >
> > Piotr
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 1, 2020, 9:36 AM Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > just to add to this proposal thread expressing my opinion. I think this
> > > change will have a huge positive impact in the project:
> > >
> > > 1.- Reduce repos from 3 to just 1, so reducing all actions and overhead
> > all
> > > that implies.
> > > 2.- Builds will be much more easy since all is contained in one repo
> > > instead of gathering from three. Right now builds in one repo must
> count
> > > with the build produced by other(s) in the chain of execution.
> > > 3.- Remove duplicated config that could be just in one place reducing
> > > complexity. Right now many configs are duplicated in each repo due to
> the
> > > actual 3 repo layout.
> > > 4.- Releases will turn just to 3 commands on a terminal what will be a
> > big
> > > point for all RMs and the project allowing us to release much more
> easy.
> > > 5.- Less commands means less errors and more automation
> > > 6.- Times to release will cut under the current 1h 30'' (as you can
> defer
> > > from the sum of the times of each video posted by Chris).
> > > 7.- The process will continue improving towards a maven compliant build
> > and
> > > release process with all the benefits that following a standard process
> > > means and how all of that means to the actual Apache build and release
> > > process.
> > > 8.- Improving over time will be more easy too.
> > >
> > > For me this is one of the key points for reaching 1.0, since will mean
> we
> > > are really prepared to do monthly (or bi-monthly if we want) releases
> of
> > > Royale.
> > >
> > > About others as RMs. I think is needed to understand the actual process
> > and
> > > know what will mean to improve this way. So I think is good Harbs do
> the
> > > next release in the actual state to gain that knowledge. In exchange I
> > > think Piotr already knows very close since he did 0.9.6, so don't think
> > is
> > > needed.
> > >
> > > I think the optimal time frame to work on this could be:
> > >
> > > 1.- Harbs work this June on release. Here we could improve on version
> > > numbers [1], since we are adding lots of stuff in each release and the
> > bug
> > > fixing is implied. Maybe as we settle third version numbers will be
> more
> > > important, since will be less new stuff and maybe more fixing, or we
> > could
> > > do minor releases and bug fixing releases...
> > > 2.- Start working on this "one repo feature".
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Carlos
> > >
> > > [1] https://semver.org/
> > >
> > >
> > > El dom., 31 may. 2020 a las 13:15, Christofer Dutz (<
> > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>) escribió:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > so thankfully Carlos watched the full 1,5 hours of my release video
> and
> > > > told me it was ok ... so I'll share them with you:
> > > >
> > > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=1BDKG-zPW3CoWLI0KQJDO5PGyEJQtKRb4
> > > >
> > > > In video 1 (27 Minutes) I am releasing the "compiler "
> > > > In video 2 (10 Minutes) I am releasing the "typedefs"
> > > > In video 3 (50 Minutes) I am releasing the "asjs/framework"
> > > >
> > > > Most additional steps are just related to the separation of the 3
> repos
> > > > ...
> > > > If we were to merge them and I would do my refactoring to the
> > > > royale-maven-plugin, it would just be the steps of video 1.
> > > >
> > > > I also added some background infos on what's happening in which step
> > and
> > > > why I'm doing things the way I am ... pehaps it makes the 1,5h a
> little
> > > > more educational as if I just typed in the commands ... will prepare
> a
> > > > text-document with all the steps ASAP.
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Am 31.05.20, 09:29 schrieb "Yishay Weiss" <yi...@hotmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > Alex might want to confirm, but I’m pretty sure DST issue was
> > fixed.
> > > >
> > > > From: Greg Dove<ma...@gmail.com>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2020 1:40 AM
> > > > To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> > > > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
> > > >
> > > > Chris, Harbs & others,
> > > >
> > > > Sorry I didn't reply earlier on this thread, I have been very
> > focused
> > > > on
> > > > some intense work tasks, consuming extra hours in each day for
> some
> > > > time
> > > > now.
> > > >
> > > > Unless I misunderstood something, I think we already had
> consensus
> > on
> > > > top-level things like:
> > > >
> > > > a) we need the royale sdk (as3 language support + application
> > > > framework +
> > > > compiler + typedefs) to continue to be usable via ant, maven, npm
> > and
> > > > possibly other future build tools
> > > > b) we need the distribution/artifacts to be validated for each of
> > the
> > > > end-user supported build tools
> > > > c) we need the release process to be as simple and streamlined as
> > > > possible,
> > > > while still keeping quality checks in place.
> > > >
> > > > This is just my limited interpretation/synthesis of discussions
> to
> > > > date, so
> > > > I hope it it makes sense. There were some expressions that
> certain
> > > > things
> > > > had to be done a certain way at (c) in order to achieve (b).
> > > > If my expression above (representing my understanding) is
> correct,
> > > > then I
> > > > really don't care what tech we use to achieve (c), so long as (a)
> > and
> > > > (b)
> > > > are achieved. I guess the only other thing I would add is that
> > > > whatever we
> > > > use for (c) should be easy to understand and maintain, but
> perhaps
> > > > that is
> > > > inherent in the 'simple and streamlined' part of what I
> expressed.
> > > >
> > > > Chris,
> > > > Thanks for investing your time in this, and for your proposal. If
> > my
> > > > understanding above is correct then I think your proposal covers
> > that
> > > > along
> > > > with the general improvements in maven configurations and
> support.
> > > > I'll try to find time to watch the video in the coming week.
> > > >
> > > > One specific comment about: ' perhaps even help the automated
> > testing
> > > > in
> > > > the ASJS repo.'
> > > > At the moment there is a RoyaleUnit ant task that Josh created.
> If
> > > > RoyaleUnit could somehow be supported via maven that would be
> > > awesome.
> > > > I
> > > > know you have other approaches as well for automated UI testing,
> > but
> > > > RoyaleUnit permits re-use of legacy FlexUnit tests, so supporting
> > > that
> > > > via
> > > > maven would be a major plus, I think.
> > > >
> > > > Harbs,
> > > > Thanks for the suggestion that I participate as RM. I only
> > understand
> > > > the
> > > > current process in a very abstract sense, apart from the time I
> > > watched
> > > > Chris and Carlos going through the first 7 steps.
> > > > I agree that, in general, it's better to understand a process
> > before
> > > > decisions relating to improvements are considered for that
> process,
> > > > and I
> > > > know I do not really understand it well. But I don't think that
> > needs
> > > > to
> > > > include me, and would prefer not to be RM in the near term. I
> will
> > be
> > > > happy
> > > > to do this at some point, but I envisage my time being quite
> > > > pre-occupied
> > > > with asjs (particularly emulation) work over the next couple of
> > > > months, and
> > > > prefer to keep my limited neurons focused on that for now.
> > Basically,
> > > > I am
> > > > happy to defer to others here.
> > > >
> > > > As an aside, one of the issues identified in recent weeks was the
> > DST
> > > > alignment issue which seemed to require DST alignment between
> RM's
> > > > local
> > > > machine and the CI server. Perhaps that is fixed now, I am not
> > sure.
> > > > If it
> > > > is not then, based on the original description of the cause of
> that
> > > > problem, it might preclude me being RM until it is fixed in any
> > case,
> > > > because that misalignment would hold true most of the year for me
> > (I
> > > > would
> > > > consider it important to fix, but not urgent to fix because we
> > have,
> > > I
> > > > believe, no others currently from the southern hemisphere who
> could
> > > be
> > > > RM
> > > > right now anyway).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Greg
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 4:02 AM Christofer Dutz <
> > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > Today I just prepared my forks of royale again and did a full
> > > > release of
> > > > > all 3 repos and did a video recording of that.
> > > > > I did find some minor quirks which I'll whip up a PR for (no
> > > profile
> > > > name
> > > > > or directory changes).
> > > > >
> > > > > As soon as I am finished cutting the video and removed lots
> > minutes
> > > > of
> > > > > jewl-theme-compilation stuff I'll publish the link to the
> videos
> > > > here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris
> > > > >
> > > > > Am 28.05.20, 18:03 schrieb "Andrew Wetmore" <
> cottage14@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > Seems like the simplest way.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:55 PM Christofer Dutz <
> > > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Infra says there's nothing in-between all or nothing with
> > > > github :-(
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So I'll probably go down the google doc route and have
> the
> > > text
> > > > > imported
> > > > > > by one of you folks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Chris
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Am 28.05.20, 17:38 schrieb "Harbs" <
> harbs.lists@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I’m going offline for two days so I’ll be quiet for a
> > > > while, but
> > > > > it
> > > > > > might be a good idea to ask infra whether they have a
> > > solution
> > > > to
> > > > > this
> > > > > > problem.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Harbs
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On May 28, 2020, at 5:36 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> > > > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > well perhaps searching for some experiences with
> this
> > > ...
> > > > > > > my gut-feeling would make me expect to have the
> wiki
> > > > content
> > > > > > replaced by Viagra ads ;-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But it would be in git, so easily undoable ....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I did find this however:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.growingwiththeweb.com/2016/07/enabling-pull-requests-on-github-wikis.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's less convenient way, but probably safer.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Chris
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Am 28.05.20, 16:25 schrieb "Harbs" <
> > > > harbs.lists@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hmm. That’s a problem I was not aware of...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What do folks think about enabling public
> editing
> > of
> > > > > wikis?[1]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Harbs
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> > > > > > <
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> On May 28, 2020, at 5:00 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> > > > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Hi all,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> so I just had a look ... it seems as if the "fork"
> > > > feature on
> > > > > > github doesn't fork the wiki too ...
> > > > > > >> So I could create my own pages, but not create PRs
> > for
> > > > > > documentation ... or I just didn't find the docs on how
> to
> > do
> > > > it.
> > > > > > >> Do you have any pointers for me?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Chris
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Am 28.05.20, 13:55 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > > > > > piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Chris,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> We are not using confluence at all. We are using
> > > Wiki
> > > > [1],
> > > > > but
> > > > > > you can
> > > > > > >> write document in whatever place you wanted to
> if
> > > you
> > > > are
> > > > > not
> > > > > > comfortable
> > > > > > >> with wiki.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Andrew,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Will you be willing to translate that document
> > into
> > > > our Wiki
> > > > > > manner ?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > >> Piotr
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:43 Christofer Dutz <
> > > > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > > > > >> napisał(a):
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> Hi Piotr,
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> I think the Royale project could grant my user
> > write
> > > > > permissions to
> > > > > > >>> confluence.
> > > > > > >>> Then I could write such a document there.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> But I could also do a google doc outside, if this
> > is
> > > > more
> > > > > > convenient.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Chris
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Am 28.05.20, 13:39 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > > > > > piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Chris,
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> I think I would like to be after Harbs and
> > > eventually
> > > > > Greg. Yes
> > > > > > you can
> > > > > > >>> send me a link, write a document with
> absolutely
> > > > EVERY step
> > > > > > which I
> > > > > > >>> have to
> > > > > > >>> do in order to get release done. Even if you
> > think
> > > > that I
> > > > > know
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > >>> steps
> > > > > > >>> like signing - you can in such places point
> into
> > > some
> > > > > existing
> > > > > > >>> document.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> I would like to be able to comment on every
> step
> > to
> > > > > confront if I
> > > > > > >>> really
> > > > > > >>> for example had to copy/paste some command or
> > just
> > > > > opposite I
> > > > > > had to do
> > > > > > >>> much more than only copy/paste.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>> Piotr
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:27 Christofer Dutz <
> > > > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > > > > >>> napisał(a):
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> Hi Piotr,
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> we could change the configuration to use the
> jgit
> > > > plugin on
> > > > > the CI
> > > > > > >>> machine
> > > > > > >>>> and to use the default on local machines.
> > > > > > >>>> In that case you could do it on any machine you
> > want
> > > > (also
> > > > > > windows)
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Who does releases in which order using which
> > tooling
> > > > ... I
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > >>> really
> > > > > > >>>> care ...
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> I'm just happy that there's a line building up
> of
> > > > people
> > > > > wanting
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >>> do so
> > > > > > >>>> and I get to use fresh releases :-)
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> If there is anything I can help with ... just
> ping
> > > me
> > > > and
> > > > > I'll be
> > > > > > >>> happy to
> > > > > > >>>> help.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Chris
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Am 28.05.20, 13:18 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > > > > > >>> piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Hi Harbs,
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> I would like to be a release manager as well,
> > but
> > > > using
> > > > > Chri's
> > > > > > >>>> implementation which as far as I know is in
> > > place. I
> > > > > would like
> > > > > > >>> to use
> > > > > > >>>> his
> > > > > > >>>> mentioned 3 steps and see how much things I
> will
> > > > have to
> > > > > do on
> > > > > > >>> my own
> > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > >>>> make release happen. I know that I will have
> to
> > do
> > > > that
> > > > > on Mac,
> > > > > > >>> cause
> > > > > > >>>> there
> > > > > > >>>> some Maven/Git/Jenkins related plugin which
> > allows
> > > > use
> > > > > Jenkins,
> > > > > > >>> but it
> > > > > > >>>> prevents me from pushing artifacts from
> windows.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> I have some thoughts about above proposition,
> > but
> > > I
> > > > will
> > > > > wait
> > > > > > >>> till we
> > > > > > >>>> all
> > > > > > >>>> pass trough the release process.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>>> Piotr
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 11:06 Christofer Dutz <
> > > > > > >>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > > > > >>>> napisał(a):
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Hi Harbs,
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> makes sense.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Chris
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" <
> > > > harbs.lists@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Hi Chris,
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Thanks for you work helping with the 0.9.7
> > > release
> > > > as
> > > > > well.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> I’m definitely open to improving the
> structure
> > > and
> > > > the
> > > > > > >>> process.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> My biggest hesitation is that I don’t
> > understand
> > > > the
> > > > > > >>> current
> > > > > > >>>> release
> > > > > > >>>>> process well enough. Until recently Alex was
> the
> > > > only one
> > > > > who
> > > > > > >>> really
> > > > > > >>>>> understood it. Yishay just went through the
> > process
> > > > so he
> > > > > has
> > > > > > >>> a good
> > > > > > >>>>> understanding now. I plan on doing another
> > release
> > > > the week
> > > > > > >>>> following next
> > > > > > >>>>> (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope is that I
> > > will
> > > > > > >>> understand it
> > > > > > >>>> better
> > > > > > >>>>> at that point. I don’t know whether Greg Dove
> is
> > > > willing
> > > > > to do
> > > > > > >>> a
> > > > > > >>>> release,
> > > > > > >>>>> but I think it would be very valuable to get
> his
> > > > input as
> > > > > well.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> So my proposal is that we get some more of us
> > > > familiar
> > > > > > >>> with the
> > > > > > >>>> what
> > > > > > >>>>> and the why of the current process. I want to
> > > > understand
> > > > > what
> > > > > > >>> was
> > > > > > >>>> done and
> > > > > > >>>>> why it was done. I don’t feel comfortable
> having
> > an
> > > > > opinion on
> > > > > > >>>> changing
> > > > > > >>>>> things until I can weigh the pros and cons. I’d
> > > like
> > > > more
> > > > > of
> > > > > > >>> us to
> > > > > > >>>> be in
> > > > > > >>>>> the same position so we will be in the position
> > of
> > > > building
> > > > > > >>>> consensus on
> > > > > > >>>>> changes. The reason I hope that Greg Dove
> > > > specifically
> > > > > does a
> > > > > > >>>> release is
> > > > > > >>>>> because I feel he’s pretty neutral on
> technology
> > > and
> > > > I
> > > > > think
> > > > > > >>> he’ll
> > > > > > >>>> have
> > > > > > >>>>> good valuable input.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> So here’s my proposal:
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> 1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3 releases
> in
> > > > rapid
> > > > > > >>> succession
> > > > > > >>>>> without making too many changes.
> > > > > > >>>>> 2. Let’s try and get as many of us familiar
> > with
> > > > that
> > > > > > >>> process as
> > > > > > >>>>> possible.
> > > > > > >>>>> 3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss the pain
> > > points
> > > > and
> > > > > > >>> what can
> > > > > > >>>> be
> > > > > > >>>>> done to improve the structure and/or the
> process
> > > > with pros
> > > > > and
> > > > > > >>> cons.
> > > > > > >>>> Maybe
> > > > > > >>>>> your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe
> something
> > > > else?
> > > > > > >>> Similar?
> > > > > > >>>> Don’t
> > > > > > >>>>> know, but I’d like to get to the point where we
> > can
> > > > have an
> > > > > > >>>> intelligent
> > > > > > >>>>> discussion on the topic with different points
> of
> > > > view. I
> > > > > don’t
> > > > > > >>> think
> > > > > > >>>> we’re
> > > > > > >>>>> quite there yet.
> > > > > > >>>>> 4. Carefully start implementing changes.
> Making
> > > big
> > > > > > >>> changes is
> > > > > > >>>> often
> > > > > > >>>>> disruptive and is often the cause of conflict.
> > This
> > > > is
> > > > > nothing
> > > > > > >>>> specific to
> > > > > > >>>>> us, and there’s even accepted advice on the
> > topic.
> > > I
> > > > > suggest
> > > > > > >>> we all
> > > > > > >>>> read
> > > > > > >>>>> and follow James Duncan Davidson's “rules for
> > > > > > >>> revolutionaries”[1].
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> I appreciate having your proposed changes to
> > > > ponder the
> > > > > > >>> next
> > > > > > >>>> couple of
> > > > > > >>>>> weeks.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> In the meantime, please by all means, dive
> into
> > > > Royale
> > > > > and
> > > > > > >>> create
> > > > > > >>>>> issues, pull requests, let us know
> difficulties,
> > > > etc. I’ll
> > > > > > >>> make my
> > > > > > >>>> best
> > > > > > >>>>> effort to be as responsive as possible and help
> > > > where I
> > > > > can. If
> > > > > > >>>> you’re
> > > > > > >>>>> feeling frustration, please reach out to me on
> > > Slack.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Does this make sense?
> > > > > > >>>>> Harbs
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> [1]
> > http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries
> > > <
> > > > > > >>>>> http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Christofer Dutz
> <
> > > > > > >>>>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> congrats to the successful release of 0.9.7 …
> it
> > > > greatly
> > > > > > >>>> simplified
> > > > > > >>>>> the last PLC4X release to have the artifacts
> out
> > > > there in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>> wild.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> I would really like to see Royale as the tool
> in
> > > my
> > > > > > >>> toolbox for
> > > > > > >>>>> building industrial UI applications as I sort
> of
> > am
> > > > not
> > > > > that
> > > > > > >>> happy
> > > > > > >>>> with the
> > > > > > >>>>> other existing alternatives.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> In order to do this I know that I have some
> > areas
> > > of
> > > > > > >>> expertise
> > > > > > >>>> I can
> > > > > > >>>>> offer to the project … Writing ActionScript and
> > > MXML
> > > > code
> > > > > is
> > > > > > >>>> definitely not
> > > > > > >>>>> where I can help best.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> However I’m really good at Java, Maven and
> > Apache
> > > > > > >>>> Infrastructure. I
> > > > > > >>>>> know that development is most active in the
> ASJS
> > > > repo but I
> > > > > > >>> would be
> > > > > > >>>> happy
> > > > > > >>>>> to help on the other sides ... perhaps even
> help
> > > the
> > > > > automated
> > > > > > >>>> testing in
> > > > > > >>>>> the ASJS repo.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> I would have one proposal on how to really
> > > simplify
> > > > > > >>> things,
> > > > > > >>>> but I
> > > > > > >>>>> would be hesitant to start working on this
> before
> > > we
> > > > have
> > > > > > >>> consensus
> > > > > > >>>> on this
> > > > > > >>>>> here.
> > > > > > >>>>>> It would probably involve multiple weeks of
> full
> > > > time
> > > > > > >>> work in
> > > > > > >>>> total
> > > > > > >>>>> to do it for me, but I would be happy to do it,
> > if
> > > > the
> > > > > project
> > > > > > >>> would
> > > > > > >>>> accept
> > > > > > >>>>> it in the end and you folks would be willing to
> > > help
> > > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>> parts
> > > > > > >>>> I’m not
> > > > > > >>>>> too deep into (Ant-, NPM build adjustments). So
> > > > that’s why
> > > > > I’m
> > > > > > >>>> bringing
> > > > > > >>>>> this up here first. I know it might question
> some
> > > > unwritten
> > > > > > >>> project
> > > > > > >>>> rules,
> > > > > > >>>>> but I would kindly ask you to not just block
> the
> > > > > discussion and
> > > > > > >>>> perhaps
> > > > > > >>>>> help re-evaluating why they became “project
> > rules”
> > > > and if
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>>> assumptions
> > > > > > >>>>> were correct or still apply.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> The benefit would be:
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> * Less problems in getting set-up (just
> clone
> > > one
> > > > > > >>> repo)
> > > > > > >>>>>> * Simpler release (Only need to release one
> > > > > > >>> repository … no
> > > > > > >>>>> updating of version information in-between)
> > > > > > >>>>>> * Less things that can go wrong (I remember
> > when
> > > > > > >>> compiler
> > > > > > >>>> was
> > > > > > >>>>> already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest wasn’t
> > yet …
> > > > there
> > > > > were
> > > > > > >>> issues
> > > > > > >>>>> discussed on the list)
> > > > > > >>>>>> * I would use the opportunity to clean up
> some
> > > > things
> > > > > > >>> in the
> > > > > > >>>>> maven build, because despite the probably
> common
> > > > > assumption …
> > > > > > >>> I’m not
> > > > > > >>>>> really happy with the usability of the maven
> > build
> > > > from a
> > > > > > >>> user’s
> > > > > > >>>>> perspective … I think there’s great room for
> > > > improvement
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> In general I would propose to merge all 3
> > > > repositories
> > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > >>>> one.
> > > > > > >>>>> Right now the Maven build would probably work
> > with
> > > > > different
> > > > > > >>>> releases of
> > > > > > >>>>> the compiler or typedefs but from what I can
> see
> > …
> > > > the Ant
> > > > > > >>> release
> > > > > > >>>> would
> > > > > > >>>>> probably not work without modification. So the
> > > whole
> > > > idea
> > > > > of
> > > > > > >>>> releasing
> > > > > > >>>>> separately seems to be more a theoretical one.
> I
> > > > think in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>>> history of
> > > > > > >>>>> FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done once
> > (please
> > > > correct
> > > > > me
> > > > > > >>> if I’m
> > > > > > >>>>> wrong). If there are external entities only
> > > > interested in
> > > > > > >>> consuming
> > > > > > >>>> parts
> > > > > > >>>>> of the project, we could build source
> > distribution
> > > > for
> > > > > these
> > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > >>>> only
> > > > > > >>>>> contain the parts they are interest in.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> * I propose to move the artifacts needed for
> > the
> > > > > > >>> build but
> > > > > > >>>> not
> > > > > > >>>>> being part of the build (build-tools,
> > jburg-types)
> > > > into a
> > > > > > >>> separate
> > > > > > >>>>> repository where they can be released
> > independently
> > > > and
> > > > > don’t
> > > > > > >>> cause
> > > > > > >>>>> confusion like they are doing right now.
> > > > > > >>>>>> * Then I would like to create a new
> repository
> > > > (Let’s
> > > > > > >>> call
> > > > > > >>>> it
> > > > > > >>>>> “royale”) which contains 3 directories:
> compiler,
> > > > typedefs
> > > > > and
> > > > > > >>> asjs
> > > > > > >>>> (or
> > > > > > >>>>> even with the current “royale-“ prefix, I don’t
> > > > really
> > > > > > >>> care/mind).
> > > > > > >>>>>> * Now comes the biggest block … I would need
> > to
> > > > > > >>> completely
> > > > > > >>>>> rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the core of
> it
> > > > would be
> > > > > also
> > > > > > >>> moved
> > > > > > >>>> to the
> > > > > > >>>>> new build-tools repository. This plugin would
> > sort
> > > > of be an
> > > > > > >>> empty
> > > > > > >>>> skeleton
> > > > > > >>>>> to load compiler plugins. This is needed as
> Maven
> > > > can’t
> > > > > build a
> > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > >>>>> where a plugin used in the project is also part
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > build
> > > > > > >>> itself.
> > > > > > >>>> So we
> > > > > > >>>>> couldn’t build all-in-one go without this
> change.
> > > > > > >>>>>> * Next step would be to add a new
> > royale-parent
> > > > pom
> > > > > > >>> in the
> > > > > > >>>> new
> > > > > > >>>>> root of the project, the 3 old parents would be
> > > > updated to
> > > > > use
> > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > >>>> new
> > > > > > >>>>> parent and a lot of duplicated configuration
> > could
> > > > be moved
> > > > > > >>> there,
> > > > > > >>>> hereby
> > > > > > >>>>> greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> A migration plan, could be to :
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> * create a feature-branch in all 3
> > repositories
> > > > > > >>>>>> * create two new repos “royale” and
> > > > > > >>> “royale-build-tools” (or
> > > > > > >>>>> whatever you want to name them)
> > > > > > >>>>>> * Start with using git submodules to import
> > the
> > > 3
> > > > > > >>> branches
> > > > > > >>>> into
> > > > > > >>>>> the new (I know submodules really suck, but
> they
> > > > would
> > > > > only be
> > > > > > >>>> needed until
> > > > > > >>>>> everything is finished)
> > > > > > >>>>>> * I would move/copy the build tools to the
> new
> > > > repo
> > > > > > >>> and
> > > > > > >>>> start
> > > > > > >>>>> working on the new maven plugin
> > > > > > >>>>>> * Then I would need to update the old
> compiler
> > > > repo to
> > > > > > >>>> produce
> > > > > > >>>>> something I can use as royale-maven-plugin
> > plugins
> > > > > > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the
> > typedefs
> > > to
> > > > > > >>> use the
> > > > > > >>>> new
> > > > > > >>>>> plugin
> > > > > > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the asjs
> > repo
> > > > to
> > > > > > >>> use the
> > > > > > >>>> new
> > > > > > >>>>> plugin
> > > > > > >>>>>> * Then I would add the new royale-parent pom
> > > > > > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would simplify and
> > > > deduplicate
> > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > >>>>> configuration
> > > > > > >>>>>> * Now I would definitely need some help with
> > > > > > >>> adjusting the
> > > > > > >>>> Ant
> > > > > > >>>>> and possibly NPM build to these changes (Most
> of
> > > them
> > > > > should be
> > > > > > >>>>> profile-names and maybe directory names or
> paths)
> > > > > > >>>>>> * The last thing that would be required to
> be
> > > > done now
> > > > > > >>>> would be
> > > > > > >>>>> to remove the submodules in the “royale”
> > repository
> > > > and to
> > > > > > >>> import
> > > > > > >>>> the real
> > > > > > >>>>> repos
> > > > > > >>>>>> * After this the 3 old repos could be
> archived
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> I am really looking forward to some open
> > > discussion
> > > > on
> > > > > > >>> this.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Chris
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> --
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Piotr Zarzycki
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Patreon: *
> https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > > > >>>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Piotr Zarzycki
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Patreon: *
> https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > > > >>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Piotr Zarzycki
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > > > >> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Andrew Wetmore
> > > > >
> > > > > http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carlos Rovira
> > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
--
Piotr Zarzycki
Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Posted by Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>.
Carlos,
I do have a good knowledge about our current release process, but what
Chris's proposed is a different approach - That approach I wanted to try,
cause as far as I understand him - everything is in place and anyone can
right now do 3 steps release.
Chris,
What do you mean by "cleaning up the maven plugin" ? Why do you wanted to
do this before I have tried your way of releasing SDK ?
How it influence whole process ?
What if we reject putting together repository in 1 - Does your cleaning up
change something - that you will have to revert later ?
Thanks,
Piotr
pon., 1 cze 2020 o 11:21 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org> napisał(a):
> Hi,
>
> that's ok for me too. Just was to expose what I think will be the most
> optimal trip, since I thought you had a good knowledge of actual state of
> things and what will be the improvements. But if you think you need to
> follow up that's fine too.
>
>
>
>
> El lun., 1 jun. 2020 a las 10:24, Christofer Dutz (<
> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>) escribió:
>
> > Hi Piotr,
> >
> > Makes perfect sense to me. guess I can start with the Royale-unit
> surefire
> > support first. I can also start cleaning up the maven plugin without any
> of
> > the big steps. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
> >
> > So I would also suggest doing small steps, to keep all on board.
> >
> > The only reason I brought up this discussion was to describe the final
> > goal for me.
> >
> >
> > Chris
> > ________________________________
> > Von: Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>
> > Gesendet: Montag, 1. Juni 2020 09:43
> > An: Apache Royale Development <de...@royale.apache.org>
> > Betreff: Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
> >
> > Carlos,
> >
> > Like I stated I wanted to understand what Chris did, so I will be the
> next
> > RM after Harbs. I'm going to use Chris's improvements and see what
> exactly
> > they means.
> >
> > I didn't check his video but I hope I have there complementary
> > instructions. I'm familiar with Maven - I expect that all of that will
> take
> > max 1 day and I will have RC1. If not we need to improve before any Big
> > steps described here.
> >
> > I do have couple of some sort of requirements towards those steps if they
> > are really going to happen - before I talk about them I'm going to be RM.
> >
> > I hope it makes sense to you.
> >
> > Piotr
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 1, 2020, 9:36 AM Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > just to add to this proposal thread expressing my opinion. I think this
> > > change will have a huge positive impact in the project:
> > >
> > > 1.- Reduce repos from 3 to just 1, so reducing all actions and overhead
> > all
> > > that implies.
> > > 2.- Builds will be much more easy since all is contained in one repo
> > > instead of gathering from three. Right now builds in one repo must
> count
> > > with the build produced by other(s) in the chain of execution.
> > > 3.- Remove duplicated config that could be just in one place reducing
> > > complexity. Right now many configs are duplicated in each repo due to
> the
> > > actual 3 repo layout.
> > > 4.- Releases will turn just to 3 commands on a terminal what will be a
> > big
> > > point for all RMs and the project allowing us to release much more
> easy.
> > > 5.- Less commands means less errors and more automation
> > > 6.- Times to release will cut under the current 1h 30'' (as you can
> defer
> > > from the sum of the times of each video posted by Chris).
> > > 7.- The process will continue improving towards a maven compliant build
> > and
> > > release process with all the benefits that following a standard process
> > > means and how all of that means to the actual Apache build and release
> > > process.
> > > 8.- Improving over time will be more easy too.
> > >
> > > For me this is one of the key points for reaching 1.0, since will mean
> we
> > > are really prepared to do monthly (or bi-monthly if we want) releases
> of
> > > Royale.
> > >
> > > About others as RMs. I think is needed to understand the actual process
> > and
> > > know what will mean to improve this way. So I think is good Harbs do
> the
> > > next release in the actual state to gain that knowledge. In exchange I
> > > think Piotr already knows very close since he did 0.9.6, so don't think
> > is
> > > needed.
> > >
> > > I think the optimal time frame to work on this could be:
> > >
> > > 1.- Harbs work this June on release. Here we could improve on version
> > > numbers [1], since we are adding lots of stuff in each release and the
> > bug
> > > fixing is implied. Maybe as we settle third version numbers will be
> more
> > > important, since will be less new stuff and maybe more fixing, or we
> > could
> > > do minor releases and bug fixing releases...
> > > 2.- Start working on this "one repo feature".
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Carlos
> > >
> > > [1] https://semver.org/
> > >
> > >
> > > El dom., 31 may. 2020 a las 13:15, Christofer Dutz (<
> > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>) escribió:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > so thankfully Carlos watched the full 1,5 hours of my release video
> and
> > > > told me it was ok ... so I'll share them with you:
> > > >
> > > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=1BDKG-zPW3CoWLI0KQJDO5PGyEJQtKRb4
> > > >
> > > > In video 1 (27 Minutes) I am releasing the "compiler "
> > > > In video 2 (10 Minutes) I am releasing the "typedefs"
> > > > In video 3 (50 Minutes) I am releasing the "asjs/framework"
> > > >
> > > > Most additional steps are just related to the separation of the 3
> repos
> > > > ...
> > > > If we were to merge them and I would do my refactoring to the
> > > > royale-maven-plugin, it would just be the steps of video 1.
> > > >
> > > > I also added some background infos on what's happening in which step
> > and
> > > > why I'm doing things the way I am ... pehaps it makes the 1,5h a
> little
> > > > more educational as if I just typed in the commands ... will prepare
> a
> > > > text-document with all the steps ASAP.
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Am 31.05.20, 09:29 schrieb "Yishay Weiss" <yi...@hotmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > Alex might want to confirm, but I’m pretty sure DST issue was
> > fixed.
> > > >
> > > > From: Greg Dove<ma...@gmail.com>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2020 1:40 AM
> > > > To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> > > > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
> > > >
> > > > Chris, Harbs & others,
> > > >
> > > > Sorry I didn't reply earlier on this thread, I have been very
> > focused
> > > > on
> > > > some intense work tasks, consuming extra hours in each day for
> some
> > > > time
> > > > now.
> > > >
> > > > Unless I misunderstood something, I think we already had
> consensus
> > on
> > > > top-level things like:
> > > >
> > > > a) we need the royale sdk (as3 language support + application
> > > > framework +
> > > > compiler + typedefs) to continue to be usable via ant, maven, npm
> > and
> > > > possibly other future build tools
> > > > b) we need the distribution/artifacts to be validated for each of
> > the
> > > > end-user supported build tools
> > > > c) we need the release process to be as simple and streamlined as
> > > > possible,
> > > > while still keeping quality checks in place.
> > > >
> > > > This is just my limited interpretation/synthesis of discussions
> to
> > > > date, so
> > > > I hope it it makes sense. There were some expressions that
> certain
> > > > things
> > > > had to be done a certain way at (c) in order to achieve (b).
> > > > If my expression above (representing my understanding) is
> correct,
> > > > then I
> > > > really don't care what tech we use to achieve (c), so long as (a)
> > and
> > > > (b)
> > > > are achieved. I guess the only other thing I would add is that
> > > > whatever we
> > > > use for (c) should be easy to understand and maintain, but
> perhaps
> > > > that is
> > > > inherent in the 'simple and streamlined' part of what I
> expressed.
> > > >
> > > > Chris,
> > > > Thanks for investing your time in this, and for your proposal. If
> > my
> > > > understanding above is correct then I think your proposal covers
> > that
> > > > along
> > > > with the general improvements in maven configurations and
> support.
> > > > I'll try to find time to watch the video in the coming week.
> > > >
> > > > One specific comment about: ' perhaps even help the automated
> > testing
> > > > in
> > > > the ASJS repo.'
> > > > At the moment there is a RoyaleUnit ant task that Josh created.
> If
> > > > RoyaleUnit could somehow be supported via maven that would be
> > > awesome.
> > > > I
> > > > know you have other approaches as well for automated UI testing,
> > but
> > > > RoyaleUnit permits re-use of legacy FlexUnit tests, so supporting
> > > that
> > > > via
> > > > maven would be a major plus, I think.
> > > >
> > > > Harbs,
> > > > Thanks for the suggestion that I participate as RM. I only
> > understand
> > > > the
> > > > current process in a very abstract sense, apart from the time I
> > > watched
> > > > Chris and Carlos going through the first 7 steps.
> > > > I agree that, in general, it's better to understand a process
> > before
> > > > decisions relating to improvements are considered for that
> process,
> > > > and I
> > > > know I do not really understand it well. But I don't think that
> > needs
> > > > to
> > > > include me, and would prefer not to be RM in the near term. I
> will
> > be
> > > > happy
> > > > to do this at some point, but I envisage my time being quite
> > > > pre-occupied
> > > > with asjs (particularly emulation) work over the next couple of
> > > > months, and
> > > > prefer to keep my limited neurons focused on that for now.
> > Basically,
> > > > I am
> > > > happy to defer to others here.
> > > >
> > > > As an aside, one of the issues identified in recent weeks was the
> > DST
> > > > alignment issue which seemed to require DST alignment between
> RM's
> > > > local
> > > > machine and the CI server. Perhaps that is fixed now, I am not
> > sure.
> > > > If it
> > > > is not then, based on the original description of the cause of
> that
> > > > problem, it might preclude me being RM until it is fixed in any
> > case,
> > > > because that misalignment would hold true most of the year for me
> > (I
> > > > would
> > > > consider it important to fix, but not urgent to fix because we
> > have,
> > > I
> > > > believe, no others currently from the southern hemisphere who
> could
> > > be
> > > > RM
> > > > right now anyway).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Greg
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 4:02 AM Christofer Dutz <
> > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > Today I just prepared my forks of royale again and did a full
> > > > release of
> > > > > all 3 repos and did a video recording of that.
> > > > > I did find some minor quirks which I'll whip up a PR for (no
> > > profile
> > > > name
> > > > > or directory changes).
> > > > >
> > > > > As soon as I am finished cutting the video and removed lots
> > minutes
> > > > of
> > > > > jewl-theme-compilation stuff I'll publish the link to the
> videos
> > > > here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris
> > > > >
> > > > > Am 28.05.20, 18:03 schrieb "Andrew Wetmore" <
> cottage14@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > Seems like the simplest way.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:55 PM Christofer Dutz <
> > > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Infra says there's nothing in-between all or nothing with
> > > > github :-(
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So I'll probably go down the google doc route and have
> the
> > > text
> > > > > imported
> > > > > > by one of you folks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Chris
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Am 28.05.20, 17:38 schrieb "Harbs" <
> harbs.lists@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I’m going offline for two days so I’ll be quiet for a
> > > > while, but
> > > > > it
> > > > > > might be a good idea to ask infra whether they have a
> > > solution
> > > > to
> > > > > this
> > > > > > problem.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Harbs
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On May 28, 2020, at 5:36 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> > > > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > well perhaps searching for some experiences with
> this
> > > ...
> > > > > > > my gut-feeling would make me expect to have the
> wiki
> > > > content
> > > > > > replaced by Viagra ads ;-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But it would be in git, so easily undoable ....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I did find this however:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.growingwiththeweb.com/2016/07/enabling-pull-requests-on-github-wikis.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's less convenient way, but probably safer.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Chris
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Am 28.05.20, 16:25 schrieb "Harbs" <
> > > > harbs.lists@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hmm. That’s a problem I was not aware of...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What do folks think about enabling public
> editing
> > of
> > > > > wikis?[1]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Harbs
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> > > > > > <
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> On May 28, 2020, at 5:00 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> > > > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Hi all,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> so I just had a look ... it seems as if the "fork"
> > > > feature on
> > > > > > github doesn't fork the wiki too ...
> > > > > > >> So I could create my own pages, but not create PRs
> > for
> > > > > > documentation ... or I just didn't find the docs on how
> to
> > do
> > > > it.
> > > > > > >> Do you have any pointers for me?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Chris
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Am 28.05.20, 13:55 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > > > > > piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Chris,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> We are not using confluence at all. We are using
> > > Wiki
> > > > [1],
> > > > > but
> > > > > > you can
> > > > > > >> write document in whatever place you wanted to
> if
> > > you
> > > > are
> > > > > not
> > > > > > comfortable
> > > > > > >> with wiki.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Andrew,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Will you be willing to translate that document
> > into
> > > > our Wiki
> > > > > > manner ?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > >> Piotr
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:43 Christofer Dutz <
> > > > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > > > > >> napisał(a):
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> Hi Piotr,
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> I think the Royale project could grant my user
> > write
> > > > > permissions to
> > > > > > >>> confluence.
> > > > > > >>> Then I could write such a document there.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> But I could also do a google doc outside, if this
> > is
> > > > more
> > > > > > convenient.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Chris
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Am 28.05.20, 13:39 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > > > > > piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Chris,
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> I think I would like to be after Harbs and
> > > eventually
> > > > > Greg. Yes
> > > > > > you can
> > > > > > >>> send me a link, write a document with
> absolutely
> > > > EVERY step
> > > > > > which I
> > > > > > >>> have to
> > > > > > >>> do in order to get release done. Even if you
> > think
> > > > that I
> > > > > know
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > >>> steps
> > > > > > >>> like signing - you can in such places point
> into
> > > some
> > > > > existing
> > > > > > >>> document.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> I would like to be able to comment on every
> step
> > to
> > > > > confront if I
> > > > > > >>> really
> > > > > > >>> for example had to copy/paste some command or
> > just
> > > > > opposite I
> > > > > > had to do
> > > > > > >>> much more than only copy/paste.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>> Piotr
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:27 Christofer Dutz <
> > > > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > > > > >>> napisał(a):
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> Hi Piotr,
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> we could change the configuration to use the
> jgit
> > > > plugin on
> > > > > the CI
> > > > > > >>> machine
> > > > > > >>>> and to use the default on local machines.
> > > > > > >>>> In that case you could do it on any machine you
> > want
> > > > (also
> > > > > > windows)
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Who does releases in which order using which
> > tooling
> > > > ... I
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > >>> really
> > > > > > >>>> care ...
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> I'm just happy that there's a line building up
> of
> > > > people
> > > > > wanting
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >>> do so
> > > > > > >>>> and I get to use fresh releases :-)
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> If there is anything I can help with ... just
> ping
> > > me
> > > > and
> > > > > I'll be
> > > > > > >>> happy to
> > > > > > >>>> help.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Chris
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Am 28.05.20, 13:18 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > > > > > >>> piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Hi Harbs,
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> I would like to be a release manager as well,
> > but
> > > > using
> > > > > Chri's
> > > > > > >>>> implementation which as far as I know is in
> > > place. I
> > > > > would like
> > > > > > >>> to use
> > > > > > >>>> his
> > > > > > >>>> mentioned 3 steps and see how much things I
> will
> > > > have to
> > > > > do on
> > > > > > >>> my own
> > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > >>>> make release happen. I know that I will have
> to
> > do
> > > > that
> > > > > on Mac,
> > > > > > >>> cause
> > > > > > >>>> there
> > > > > > >>>> some Maven/Git/Jenkins related plugin which
> > allows
> > > > use
> > > > > Jenkins,
> > > > > > >>> but it
> > > > > > >>>> prevents me from pushing artifacts from
> windows.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> I have some thoughts about above proposition,
> > but
> > > I
> > > > will
> > > > > wait
> > > > > > >>> till we
> > > > > > >>>> all
> > > > > > >>>> pass trough the release process.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>>> Piotr
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 11:06 Christofer Dutz <
> > > > > > >>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > > > > >>>> napisał(a):
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Hi Harbs,
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> makes sense.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Chris
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" <
> > > > harbs.lists@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Hi Chris,
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Thanks for you work helping with the 0.9.7
> > > release
> > > > as
> > > > > well.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> I’m definitely open to improving the
> structure
> > > and
> > > > the
> > > > > > >>> process.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> My biggest hesitation is that I don’t
> > understand
> > > > the
> > > > > > >>> current
> > > > > > >>>> release
> > > > > > >>>>> process well enough. Until recently Alex was
> the
> > > > only one
> > > > > who
> > > > > > >>> really
> > > > > > >>>>> understood it. Yishay just went through the
> > process
> > > > so he
> > > > > has
> > > > > > >>> a good
> > > > > > >>>>> understanding now. I plan on doing another
> > release
> > > > the week
> > > > > > >>>> following next
> > > > > > >>>>> (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope is that I
> > > will
> > > > > > >>> understand it
> > > > > > >>>> better
> > > > > > >>>>> at that point. I don’t know whether Greg Dove
> is
> > > > willing
> > > > > to do
> > > > > > >>> a
> > > > > > >>>> release,
> > > > > > >>>>> but I think it would be very valuable to get
> his
> > > > input as
> > > > > well.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> So my proposal is that we get some more of us
> > > > familiar
> > > > > > >>> with the
> > > > > > >>>> what
> > > > > > >>>>> and the why of the current process. I want to
> > > > understand
> > > > > what
> > > > > > >>> was
> > > > > > >>>> done and
> > > > > > >>>>> why it was done. I don’t feel comfortable
> having
> > an
> > > > > opinion on
> > > > > > >>>> changing
> > > > > > >>>>> things until I can weigh the pros and cons. I’d
> > > like
> > > > more
> > > > > of
> > > > > > >>> us to
> > > > > > >>>> be in
> > > > > > >>>>> the same position so we will be in the position
> > of
> > > > building
> > > > > > >>>> consensus on
> > > > > > >>>>> changes. The reason I hope that Greg Dove
> > > > specifically
> > > > > does a
> > > > > > >>>> release is
> > > > > > >>>>> because I feel he’s pretty neutral on
> technology
> > > and
> > > > I
> > > > > think
> > > > > > >>> he’ll
> > > > > > >>>> have
> > > > > > >>>>> good valuable input.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> So here’s my proposal:
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> 1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3 releases
> in
> > > > rapid
> > > > > > >>> succession
> > > > > > >>>>> without making too many changes.
> > > > > > >>>>> 2. Let’s try and get as many of us familiar
> > with
> > > > that
> > > > > > >>> process as
> > > > > > >>>>> possible.
> > > > > > >>>>> 3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss the pain
> > > points
> > > > and
> > > > > > >>> what can
> > > > > > >>>> be
> > > > > > >>>>> done to improve the structure and/or the
> process
> > > > with pros
> > > > > and
> > > > > > >>> cons.
> > > > > > >>>> Maybe
> > > > > > >>>>> your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe
> something
> > > > else?
> > > > > > >>> Similar?
> > > > > > >>>> Don’t
> > > > > > >>>>> know, but I’d like to get to the point where we
> > can
> > > > have an
> > > > > > >>>> intelligent
> > > > > > >>>>> discussion on the topic with different points
> of
> > > > view. I
> > > > > don’t
> > > > > > >>> think
> > > > > > >>>> we’re
> > > > > > >>>>> quite there yet.
> > > > > > >>>>> 4. Carefully start implementing changes.
> Making
> > > big
> > > > > > >>> changes is
> > > > > > >>>> often
> > > > > > >>>>> disruptive and is often the cause of conflict.
> > This
> > > > is
> > > > > nothing
> > > > > > >>>> specific to
> > > > > > >>>>> us, and there’s even accepted advice on the
> > topic.
> > > I
> > > > > suggest
> > > > > > >>> we all
> > > > > > >>>> read
> > > > > > >>>>> and follow James Duncan Davidson's “rules for
> > > > > > >>> revolutionaries”[1].
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> I appreciate having your proposed changes to
> > > > ponder the
> > > > > > >>> next
> > > > > > >>>> couple of
> > > > > > >>>>> weeks.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> In the meantime, please by all means, dive
> into
> > > > Royale
> > > > > and
> > > > > > >>> create
> > > > > > >>>>> issues, pull requests, let us know
> difficulties,
> > > > etc. I’ll
> > > > > > >>> make my
> > > > > > >>>> best
> > > > > > >>>>> effort to be as responsive as possible and help
> > > > where I
> > > > > can. If
> > > > > > >>>> you’re
> > > > > > >>>>> feeling frustration, please reach out to me on
> > > Slack.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Does this make sense?
> > > > > > >>>>> Harbs
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> [1]
> > http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries
> > > <
> > > > > > >>>>> http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Christofer Dutz
> <
> > > > > > >>>>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> congrats to the successful release of 0.9.7 …
> it
> > > > greatly
> > > > > > >>>> simplified
> > > > > > >>>>> the last PLC4X release to have the artifacts
> out
> > > > there in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>> wild.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> I would really like to see Royale as the tool
> in
> > > my
> > > > > > >>> toolbox for
> > > > > > >>>>> building industrial UI applications as I sort
> of
> > am
> > > > not
> > > > > that
> > > > > > >>> happy
> > > > > > >>>> with the
> > > > > > >>>>> other existing alternatives.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> In order to do this I know that I have some
> > areas
> > > of
> > > > > > >>> expertise
> > > > > > >>>> I can
> > > > > > >>>>> offer to the project … Writing ActionScript and
> > > MXML
> > > > code
> > > > > is
> > > > > > >>>> definitely not
> > > > > > >>>>> where I can help best.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> However I’m really good at Java, Maven and
> > Apache
> > > > > > >>>> Infrastructure. I
> > > > > > >>>>> know that development is most active in the
> ASJS
> > > > repo but I
> > > > > > >>> would be
> > > > > > >>>> happy
> > > > > > >>>>> to help on the other sides ... perhaps even
> help
> > > the
> > > > > automated
> > > > > > >>>> testing in
> > > > > > >>>>> the ASJS repo.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> I would have one proposal on how to really
> > > simplify
> > > > > > >>> things,
> > > > > > >>>> but I
> > > > > > >>>>> would be hesitant to start working on this
> before
> > > we
> > > > have
> > > > > > >>> consensus
> > > > > > >>>> on this
> > > > > > >>>>> here.
> > > > > > >>>>>> It would probably involve multiple weeks of
> full
> > > > time
> > > > > > >>> work in
> > > > > > >>>> total
> > > > > > >>>>> to do it for me, but I would be happy to do it,
> > if
> > > > the
> > > > > project
> > > > > > >>> would
> > > > > > >>>> accept
> > > > > > >>>>> it in the end and you folks would be willing to
> > > help
> > > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>> parts
> > > > > > >>>> I’m not
> > > > > > >>>>> too deep into (Ant-, NPM build adjustments). So
> > > > that’s why
> > > > > I’m
> > > > > > >>>> bringing
> > > > > > >>>>> this up here first. I know it might question
> some
> > > > unwritten
> > > > > > >>> project
> > > > > > >>>> rules,
> > > > > > >>>>> but I would kindly ask you to not just block
> the
> > > > > discussion and
> > > > > > >>>> perhaps
> > > > > > >>>>> help re-evaluating why they became “project
> > rules”
> > > > and if
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>>> assumptions
> > > > > > >>>>> were correct or still apply.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> The benefit would be:
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> * Less problems in getting set-up (just
> clone
> > > one
> > > > > > >>> repo)
> > > > > > >>>>>> * Simpler release (Only need to release one
> > > > > > >>> repository … no
> > > > > > >>>>> updating of version information in-between)
> > > > > > >>>>>> * Less things that can go wrong (I remember
> > when
> > > > > > >>> compiler
> > > > > > >>>> was
> > > > > > >>>>> already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest wasn’t
> > yet …
> > > > there
> > > > > were
> > > > > > >>> issues
> > > > > > >>>>> discussed on the list)
> > > > > > >>>>>> * I would use the opportunity to clean up
> some
> > > > things
> > > > > > >>> in the
> > > > > > >>>>> maven build, because despite the probably
> common
> > > > > assumption …
> > > > > > >>> I’m not
> > > > > > >>>>> really happy with the usability of the maven
> > build
> > > > from a
> > > > > > >>> user’s
> > > > > > >>>>> perspective … I think there’s great room for
> > > > improvement
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> In general I would propose to merge all 3
> > > > repositories
> > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > >>>> one.
> > > > > > >>>>> Right now the Maven build would probably work
> > with
> > > > > different
> > > > > > >>>> releases of
> > > > > > >>>>> the compiler or typedefs but from what I can
> see
> > …
> > > > the Ant
> > > > > > >>> release
> > > > > > >>>> would
> > > > > > >>>>> probably not work without modification. So the
> > > whole
> > > > idea
> > > > > of
> > > > > > >>>> releasing
> > > > > > >>>>> separately seems to be more a theoretical one.
> I
> > > > think in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>>> history of
> > > > > > >>>>> FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done once
> > (please
> > > > correct
> > > > > me
> > > > > > >>> if I’m
> > > > > > >>>>> wrong). If there are external entities only
> > > > interested in
> > > > > > >>> consuming
> > > > > > >>>> parts
> > > > > > >>>>> of the project, we could build source
> > distribution
> > > > for
> > > > > these
> > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > >>>> only
> > > > > > >>>>> contain the parts they are interest in.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> * I propose to move the artifacts needed for
> > the
> > > > > > >>> build but
> > > > > > >>>> not
> > > > > > >>>>> being part of the build (build-tools,
> > jburg-types)
> > > > into a
> > > > > > >>> separate
> > > > > > >>>>> repository where they can be released
> > independently
> > > > and
> > > > > don’t
> > > > > > >>> cause
> > > > > > >>>>> confusion like they are doing right now.
> > > > > > >>>>>> * Then I would like to create a new
> repository
> > > > (Let’s
> > > > > > >>> call
> > > > > > >>>> it
> > > > > > >>>>> “royale”) which contains 3 directories:
> compiler,
> > > > typedefs
> > > > > and
> > > > > > >>> asjs
> > > > > > >>>> (or
> > > > > > >>>>> even with the current “royale-“ prefix, I don’t
> > > > really
> > > > > > >>> care/mind).
> > > > > > >>>>>> * Now comes the biggest block … I would need
> > to
> > > > > > >>> completely
> > > > > > >>>>> rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the core of
> it
> > > > would be
> > > > > also
> > > > > > >>> moved
> > > > > > >>>> to the
> > > > > > >>>>> new build-tools repository. This plugin would
> > sort
> > > > of be an
> > > > > > >>> empty
> > > > > > >>>> skeleton
> > > > > > >>>>> to load compiler plugins. This is needed as
> Maven
> > > > can’t
> > > > > build a
> > > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > > >>>>> where a plugin used in the project is also part
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > build
> > > > > > >>> itself.
> > > > > > >>>> So we
> > > > > > >>>>> couldn’t build all-in-one go without this
> change.
> > > > > > >>>>>> * Next step would be to add a new
> > royale-parent
> > > > pom
> > > > > > >>> in the
> > > > > > >>>> new
> > > > > > >>>>> root of the project, the 3 old parents would be
> > > > updated to
> > > > > use
> > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > >>>> new
> > > > > > >>>>> parent and a lot of duplicated configuration
> > could
> > > > be moved
> > > > > > >>> there,
> > > > > > >>>> hereby
> > > > > > >>>>> greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> A migration plan, could be to :
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> * create a feature-branch in all 3
> > repositories
> > > > > > >>>>>> * create two new repos “royale” and
> > > > > > >>> “royale-build-tools” (or
> > > > > > >>>>> whatever you want to name them)
> > > > > > >>>>>> * Start with using git submodules to import
> > the
> > > 3
> > > > > > >>> branches
> > > > > > >>>> into
> > > > > > >>>>> the new (I know submodules really suck, but
> they
> > > > would
> > > > > only be
> > > > > > >>>> needed until
> > > > > > >>>>> everything is finished)
> > > > > > >>>>>> * I would move/copy the build tools to the
> new
> > > > repo
> > > > > > >>> and
> > > > > > >>>> start
> > > > > > >>>>> working on the new maven plugin
> > > > > > >>>>>> * Then I would need to update the old
> compiler
> > > > repo to
> > > > > > >>>> produce
> > > > > > >>>>> something I can use as royale-maven-plugin
> > plugins
> > > > > > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the
> > typedefs
> > > to
> > > > > > >>> use the
> > > > > > >>>> new
> > > > > > >>>>> plugin
> > > > > > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the asjs
> > repo
> > > > to
> > > > > > >>> use the
> > > > > > >>>> new
> > > > > > >>>>> plugin
> > > > > > >>>>>> * Then I would add the new royale-parent pom
> > > > > > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would simplify and
> > > > deduplicate
> > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > >>>>> configuration
> > > > > > >>>>>> * Now I would definitely need some help with
> > > > > > >>> adjusting the
> > > > > > >>>> Ant
> > > > > > >>>>> and possibly NPM build to these changes (Most
> of
> > > them
> > > > > should be
> > > > > > >>>>> profile-names and maybe directory names or
> paths)
> > > > > > >>>>>> * The last thing that would be required to
> be
> > > > done now
> > > > > > >>>> would be
> > > > > > >>>>> to remove the submodules in the “royale”
> > repository
> > > > and to
> > > > > > >>> import
> > > > > > >>>> the real
> > > > > > >>>>> repos
> > > > > > >>>>>> * After this the 3 old repos could be
> archived
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> I am really looking forward to some open
> > > discussion
> > > > on
> > > > > > >>> this.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Chris
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> --
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Piotr Zarzycki
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Patreon: *
> https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > > > >>>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Piotr Zarzycki
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Patreon: *
> https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > > > >>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Piotr Zarzycki
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > > > >> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Andrew Wetmore
> > > > >
> > > > > http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carlos Rovira
> > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
--
Piotr Zarzycki
Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi,
that's ok for me too. Just was to expose what I think will be the most
optimal trip, since I thought you had a good knowledge of actual state of
things and what will be the improvements. But if you think you need to
follow up that's fine too.
El lun., 1 jun. 2020 a las 10:24, Christofer Dutz (<
christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>) escribió:
> Hi Piotr,
>
> Makes perfect sense to me. guess I can start with the Royale-unit surefire
> support first. I can also start cleaning up the maven plugin without any of
> the big steps. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
>
> So I would also suggest doing small steps, to keep all on board.
>
> The only reason I brought up this discussion was to describe the final
> goal for me.
>
>
> Chris
> ________________________________
> Von: Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>
> Gesendet: Montag, 1. Juni 2020 09:43
> An: Apache Royale Development <de...@royale.apache.org>
> Betreff: Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
>
> Carlos,
>
> Like I stated I wanted to understand what Chris did, so I will be the next
> RM after Harbs. I'm going to use Chris's improvements and see what exactly
> they means.
>
> I didn't check his video but I hope I have there complementary
> instructions. I'm familiar with Maven - I expect that all of that will take
> max 1 day and I will have RC1. If not we need to improve before any Big
> steps described here.
>
> I do have couple of some sort of requirements towards those steps if they
> are really going to happen - before I talk about them I'm going to be RM.
>
> I hope it makes sense to you.
>
> Piotr
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2020, 9:36 AM Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > just to add to this proposal thread expressing my opinion. I think this
> > change will have a huge positive impact in the project:
> >
> > 1.- Reduce repos from 3 to just 1, so reducing all actions and overhead
> all
> > that implies.
> > 2.- Builds will be much more easy since all is contained in one repo
> > instead of gathering from three. Right now builds in one repo must count
> > with the build produced by other(s) in the chain of execution.
> > 3.- Remove duplicated config that could be just in one place reducing
> > complexity. Right now many configs are duplicated in each repo due to the
> > actual 3 repo layout.
> > 4.- Releases will turn just to 3 commands on a terminal what will be a
> big
> > point for all RMs and the project allowing us to release much more easy.
> > 5.- Less commands means less errors and more automation
> > 6.- Times to release will cut under the current 1h 30'' (as you can defer
> > from the sum of the times of each video posted by Chris).
> > 7.- The process will continue improving towards a maven compliant build
> and
> > release process with all the benefits that following a standard process
> > means and how all of that means to the actual Apache build and release
> > process.
> > 8.- Improving over time will be more easy too.
> >
> > For me this is one of the key points for reaching 1.0, since will mean we
> > are really prepared to do monthly (or bi-monthly if we want) releases of
> > Royale.
> >
> > About others as RMs. I think is needed to understand the actual process
> and
> > know what will mean to improve this way. So I think is good Harbs do the
> > next release in the actual state to gain that knowledge. In exchange I
> > think Piotr already knows very close since he did 0.9.6, so don't think
> is
> > needed.
> >
> > I think the optimal time frame to work on this could be:
> >
> > 1.- Harbs work this June on release. Here we could improve on version
> > numbers [1], since we are adding lots of stuff in each release and the
> bug
> > fixing is implied. Maybe as we settle third version numbers will be more
> > important, since will be less new stuff and maybe more fixing, or we
> could
> > do minor releases and bug fixing releases...
> > 2.- Start working on this "one repo feature".
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Carlos
> >
> > [1] https://semver.org/
> >
> >
> > El dom., 31 may. 2020 a las 13:15, Christofer Dutz (<
> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>) escribió:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > so thankfully Carlos watched the full 1,5 hours of my release video and
> > > told me it was ok ... so I'll share them with you:
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=1BDKG-zPW3CoWLI0KQJDO5PGyEJQtKRb4
> > >
> > > In video 1 (27 Minutes) I am releasing the "compiler "
> > > In video 2 (10 Minutes) I am releasing the "typedefs"
> > > In video 3 (50 Minutes) I am releasing the "asjs/framework"
> > >
> > > Most additional steps are just related to the separation of the 3 repos
> > > ...
> > > If we were to merge them and I would do my refactoring to the
> > > royale-maven-plugin, it would just be the steps of video 1.
> > >
> > > I also added some background infos on what's happening in which step
> and
> > > why I'm doing things the way I am ... pehaps it makes the 1,5h a little
> > > more educational as if I just typed in the commands ... will prepare a
> > > text-document with all the steps ASAP.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Am 31.05.20, 09:29 schrieb "Yishay Weiss" <yi...@hotmail.com>:
> > >
> > > Alex might want to confirm, but I’m pretty sure DST issue was
> fixed.
> > >
> > > From: Greg Dove<ma...@gmail.com>
> > > Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2020 1:40 AM
> > > To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
> > >
> > > Chris, Harbs & others,
> > >
> > > Sorry I didn't reply earlier on this thread, I have been very
> focused
> > > on
> > > some intense work tasks, consuming extra hours in each day for some
> > > time
> > > now.
> > >
> > > Unless I misunderstood something, I think we already had consensus
> on
> > > top-level things like:
> > >
> > > a) we need the royale sdk (as3 language support + application
> > > framework +
> > > compiler + typedefs) to continue to be usable via ant, maven, npm
> and
> > > possibly other future build tools
> > > b) we need the distribution/artifacts to be validated for each of
> the
> > > end-user supported build tools
> > > c) we need the release process to be as simple and streamlined as
> > > possible,
> > > while still keeping quality checks in place.
> > >
> > > This is just my limited interpretation/synthesis of discussions to
> > > date, so
> > > I hope it it makes sense. There were some expressions that certain
> > > things
> > > had to be done a certain way at (c) in order to achieve (b).
> > > If my expression above (representing my understanding) is correct,
> > > then I
> > > really don't care what tech we use to achieve (c), so long as (a)
> and
> > > (b)
> > > are achieved. I guess the only other thing I would add is that
> > > whatever we
> > > use for (c) should be easy to understand and maintain, but perhaps
> > > that is
> > > inherent in the 'simple and streamlined' part of what I expressed.
> > >
> > > Chris,
> > > Thanks for investing your time in this, and for your proposal. If
> my
> > > understanding above is correct then I think your proposal covers
> that
> > > along
> > > with the general improvements in maven configurations and support.
> > > I'll try to find time to watch the video in the coming week.
> > >
> > > One specific comment about: ' perhaps even help the automated
> testing
> > > in
> > > the ASJS repo.'
> > > At the moment there is a RoyaleUnit ant task that Josh created. If
> > > RoyaleUnit could somehow be supported via maven that would be
> > awesome.
> > > I
> > > know you have other approaches as well for automated UI testing,
> but
> > > RoyaleUnit permits re-use of legacy FlexUnit tests, so supporting
> > that
> > > via
> > > maven would be a major plus, I think.
> > >
> > > Harbs,
> > > Thanks for the suggestion that I participate as RM. I only
> understand
> > > the
> > > current process in a very abstract sense, apart from the time I
> > watched
> > > Chris and Carlos going through the first 7 steps.
> > > I agree that, in general, it's better to understand a process
> before
> > > decisions relating to improvements are considered for that process,
> > > and I
> > > know I do not really understand it well. But I don't think that
> needs
> > > to
> > > include me, and would prefer not to be RM in the near term. I will
> be
> > > happy
> > > to do this at some point, but I envisage my time being quite
> > > pre-occupied
> > > with asjs (particularly emulation) work over the next couple of
> > > months, and
> > > prefer to keep my limited neurons focused on that for now.
> Basically,
> > > I am
> > > happy to defer to others here.
> > >
> > > As an aside, one of the issues identified in recent weeks was the
> DST
> > > alignment issue which seemed to require DST alignment between RM's
> > > local
> > > machine and the CI server. Perhaps that is fixed now, I am not
> sure.
> > > If it
> > > is not then, based on the original description of the cause of that
> > > problem, it might preclude me being RM until it is fixed in any
> case,
> > > because that misalignment would hold true most of the year for me
> (I
> > > would
> > > consider it important to fix, but not urgent to fix because we
> have,
> > I
> > > believe, no others currently from the southern hemisphere who could
> > be
> > > RM
> > > right now anyway).
> > >
> > >
> > > Greg
> > >
> > > On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 4:02 AM Christofer Dutz <
> > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Today I just prepared my forks of royale again and did a full
> > > release of
> > > > all 3 repos and did a video recording of that.
> > > > I did find some minor quirks which I'll whip up a PR for (no
> > profile
> > > name
> > > > or directory changes).
> > > >
> > > > As soon as I am finished cutting the video and removed lots
> minutes
> > > of
> > > > jewl-theme-compilation stuff I'll publish the link to the videos
> > > here.
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > > Am 28.05.20, 18:03 schrieb "Andrew Wetmore" <cottage14@gmail.com
> >:
> > > >
> > > > Seems like the simplest way.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:55 PM Christofer Dutz <
> > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > Infra says there's nothing in-between all or nothing with
> > > github :-(
> > > > >
> > > > > So I'll probably go down the google doc route and have the
> > text
> > > > imported
> > > > > by one of you folks.
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Am 28.05.20, 17:38 schrieb "Harbs" <harbs.lists@gmail.com
> >:
> > > > >
> > > > > I’m going offline for two days so I’ll be quiet for a
> > > while, but
> > > > it
> > > > > might be a good idea to ask infra whether they have a
> > solution
> > > to
> > > > this
> > > > > problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > Harbs
> > > > >
> > > > > > On May 28, 2020, at 5:36 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> > > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > well perhaps searching for some experiences with this
> > ...
> > > > > > my gut-feeling would make me expect to have the wiki
> > > content
> > > > > replaced by Viagra ads ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But it would be in git, so easily undoable ....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I did find this however:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.growingwiththeweb.com/2016/07/enabling-pull-requests-on-github-wikis.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's less convenient way, but probably safer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Chris
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Am 28.05.20, 16:25 schrieb "Harbs" <
> > > harbs.lists@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmm. That’s a problem I was not aware of...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do folks think about enabling public editing
> of
> > > > wikis?[1]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Harbs
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> > > > > <
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> On May 28, 2020, at 5:00 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> > > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Hi all,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> so I just had a look ... it seems as if the "fork"
> > > feature on
> > > > > github doesn't fork the wiki too ...
> > > > > >> So I could create my own pages, but not create PRs
> for
> > > > > documentation ... or I just didn't find the docs on how to
> do
> > > it.
> > > > > >> Do you have any pointers for me?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Chris
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Am 28.05.20, 13:55 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > > > > piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Chris,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> We are not using confluence at all. We are using
> > Wiki
> > > [1],
> > > > but
> > > > > you can
> > > > > >> write document in whatever place you wanted to if
> > you
> > > are
> > > > not
> > > > > comfortable
> > > > > >> with wiki.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Andrew,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Will you be willing to translate that document
> into
> > > our Wiki
> > > > > manner ?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > >> Piotr
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:43 Christofer Dutz <
> > > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > > > >> napisał(a):
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Hi Piotr,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I think the Royale project could grant my user
> write
> > > > permissions to
> > > > > >>> confluence.
> > > > > >>> Then I could write such a document there.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> But I could also do a google doc outside, if this
> is
> > > more
> > > > > convenient.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Chris
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Am 28.05.20, 13:39 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > > > > piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Chris,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I think I would like to be after Harbs and
> > eventually
> > > > Greg. Yes
> > > > > you can
> > > > > >>> send me a link, write a document with absolutely
> > > EVERY step
> > > > > which I
> > > > > >>> have to
> > > > > >>> do in order to get release done. Even if you
> think
> > > that I
> > > > know
> > > > > some
> > > > > >>> steps
> > > > > >>> like signing - you can in such places point into
> > some
> > > > existing
> > > > > >>> document.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I would like to be able to comment on every step
> to
> > > > confront if I
> > > > > >>> really
> > > > > >>> for example had to copy/paste some command or
> just
> > > > opposite I
> > > > > had to do
> > > > > >>> much more than only copy/paste.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>> Piotr
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:27 Christofer Dutz <
> > > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > > > >>> napisał(a):
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> Hi Piotr,
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> we could change the configuration to use the jgit
> > > plugin on
> > > > the CI
> > > > > >>> machine
> > > > > >>>> and to use the default on local machines.
> > > > > >>>> In that case you could do it on any machine you
> want
> > > (also
> > > > > windows)
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Who does releases in which order using which
> tooling
> > > ... I
> > > > don't
> > > > > >>> really
> > > > > >>>> care ...
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> I'm just happy that there's a line building up of
> > > people
> > > > wanting
> > > > > to
> > > > > >>> do so
> > > > > >>>> and I get to use fresh releases :-)
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> If there is anything I can help with ... just ping
> > me
> > > and
> > > > I'll be
> > > > > >>> happy to
> > > > > >>>> help.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Chris
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Am 28.05.20, 13:18 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > > > > >>> piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Hi Harbs,
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> I would like to be a release manager as well,
> but
> > > using
> > > > Chri's
> > > > > >>>> implementation which as far as I know is in
> > place. I
> > > > would like
> > > > > >>> to use
> > > > > >>>> his
> > > > > >>>> mentioned 3 steps and see how much things I will
> > > have to
> > > > do on
> > > > > >>> my own
> > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > >>>> make release happen. I know that I will have to
> do
> > > that
> > > > on Mac,
> > > > > >>> cause
> > > > > >>>> there
> > > > > >>>> some Maven/Git/Jenkins related plugin which
> allows
> > > use
> > > > Jenkins,
> > > > > >>> but it
> > > > > >>>> prevents me from pushing artifacts from windows.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> I have some thoughts about above proposition,
> but
> > I
> > > will
> > > > wait
> > > > > >>> till we
> > > > > >>>> all
> > > > > >>>> pass trough the release process.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>>> Piotr
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 11:06 Christofer Dutz <
> > > > > >>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > > > >>>> napisał(a):
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Hi Harbs,
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> makes sense.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Chris
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" <
> > > harbs.lists@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Hi Chris,
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Thanks for you work helping with the 0.9.7
> > release
> > > as
> > > > well.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> I’m definitely open to improving the structure
> > and
> > > the
> > > > > >>> process.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> My biggest hesitation is that I don’t
> understand
> > > the
> > > > > >>> current
> > > > > >>>> release
> > > > > >>>>> process well enough. Until recently Alex was the
> > > only one
> > > > who
> > > > > >>> really
> > > > > >>>>> understood it. Yishay just went through the
> process
> > > so he
> > > > has
> > > > > >>> a good
> > > > > >>>>> understanding now. I plan on doing another
> release
> > > the week
> > > > > >>>> following next
> > > > > >>>>> (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope is that I
> > will
> > > > > >>> understand it
> > > > > >>>> better
> > > > > >>>>> at that point. I don’t know whether Greg Dove is
> > > willing
> > > > to do
> > > > > >>> a
> > > > > >>>> release,
> > > > > >>>>> but I think it would be very valuable to get his
> > > input as
> > > > well.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> So my proposal is that we get some more of us
> > > familiar
> > > > > >>> with the
> > > > > >>>> what
> > > > > >>>>> and the why of the current process. I want to
> > > understand
> > > > what
> > > > > >>> was
> > > > > >>>> done and
> > > > > >>>>> why it was done. I don’t feel comfortable having
> an
> > > > opinion on
> > > > > >>>> changing
> > > > > >>>>> things until I can weigh the pros and cons. I’d
> > like
> > > more
> > > > of
> > > > > >>> us to
> > > > > >>>> be in
> > > > > >>>>> the same position so we will be in the position
> of
> > > building
> > > > > >>>> consensus on
> > > > > >>>>> changes. The reason I hope that Greg Dove
> > > specifically
> > > > does a
> > > > > >>>> release is
> > > > > >>>>> because I feel he’s pretty neutral on technology
> > and
> > > I
> > > > think
> > > > > >>> he’ll
> > > > > >>>> have
> > > > > >>>>> good valuable input.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> So here’s my proposal:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> 1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3 releases in
> > > rapid
> > > > > >>> succession
> > > > > >>>>> without making too many changes.
> > > > > >>>>> 2. Let’s try and get as many of us familiar
> with
> > > that
> > > > > >>> process as
> > > > > >>>>> possible.
> > > > > >>>>> 3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss the pain
> > points
> > > and
> > > > > >>> what can
> > > > > >>>> be
> > > > > >>>>> done to improve the structure and/or the process
> > > with pros
> > > > and
> > > > > >>> cons.
> > > > > >>>> Maybe
> > > > > >>>>> your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe something
> > > else?
> > > > > >>> Similar?
> > > > > >>>> Don’t
> > > > > >>>>> know, but I’d like to get to the point where we
> can
> > > have an
> > > > > >>>> intelligent
> > > > > >>>>> discussion on the topic with different points of
> > > view. I
> > > > don’t
> > > > > >>> think
> > > > > >>>> we’re
> > > > > >>>>> quite there yet.
> > > > > >>>>> 4. Carefully start implementing changes. Making
> > big
> > > > > >>> changes is
> > > > > >>>> often
> > > > > >>>>> disruptive and is often the cause of conflict.
> This
> > > is
> > > > nothing
> > > > > >>>> specific to
> > > > > >>>>> us, and there’s even accepted advice on the
> topic.
> > I
> > > > suggest
> > > > > >>> we all
> > > > > >>>> read
> > > > > >>>>> and follow James Duncan Davidson's “rules for
> > > > > >>> revolutionaries”[1].
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> I appreciate having your proposed changes to
> > > ponder the
> > > > > >>> next
> > > > > >>>> couple of
> > > > > >>>>> weeks.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> In the meantime, please by all means, dive into
> > > Royale
> > > > and
> > > > > >>> create
> > > > > >>>>> issues, pull requests, let us know difficulties,
> > > etc. I’ll
> > > > > >>> make my
> > > > > >>>> best
> > > > > >>>>> effort to be as responsive as possible and help
> > > where I
> > > > can. If
> > > > > >>>> you’re
> > > > > >>>>> feeling frustration, please reach out to me on
> > Slack.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Does this make sense?
> > > > > >>>>> Harbs
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> [1]
> http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries
> > <
> > > > > >>>>> http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Christofer Dutz <
> > > > > >>>>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> congrats to the successful release of 0.9.7 … it
> > > greatly
> > > > > >>>> simplified
> > > > > >>>>> the last PLC4X release to have the artifacts out
> > > there in
> > > > the
> > > > > >>> wild.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I would really like to see Royale as the tool in
> > my
> > > > > >>> toolbox for
> > > > > >>>>> building industrial UI applications as I sort of
> am
> > > not
> > > > that
> > > > > >>> happy
> > > > > >>>> with the
> > > > > >>>>> other existing alternatives.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> In order to do this I know that I have some
> areas
> > of
> > > > > >>> expertise
> > > > > >>>> I can
> > > > > >>>>> offer to the project … Writing ActionScript and
> > MXML
> > > code
> > > > is
> > > > > >>>> definitely not
> > > > > >>>>> where I can help best.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> However I’m really good at Java, Maven and
> Apache
> > > > > >>>> Infrastructure. I
> > > > > >>>>> know that development is most active in the ASJS
> > > repo but I
> > > > > >>> would be
> > > > > >>>> happy
> > > > > >>>>> to help on the other sides ... perhaps even help
> > the
> > > > automated
> > > > > >>>> testing in
> > > > > >>>>> the ASJS repo.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I would have one proposal on how to really
> > simplify
> > > > > >>> things,
> > > > > >>>> but I
> > > > > >>>>> would be hesitant to start working on this before
> > we
> > > have
> > > > > >>> consensus
> > > > > >>>> on this
> > > > > >>>>> here.
> > > > > >>>>>> It would probably involve multiple weeks of full
> > > time
> > > > > >>> work in
> > > > > >>>> total
> > > > > >>>>> to do it for me, but I would be happy to do it,
> if
> > > the
> > > > project
> > > > > >>> would
> > > > > >>>> accept
> > > > > >>>>> it in the end and you folks would be willing to
> > help
> > > with
> > > > the
> > > > > >>> parts
> > > > > >>>> I’m not
> > > > > >>>>> too deep into (Ant-, NPM build adjustments). So
> > > that’s why
> > > > I’m
> > > > > >>>> bringing
> > > > > >>>>> this up here first. I know it might question some
> > > unwritten
> > > > > >>> project
> > > > > >>>> rules,
> > > > > >>>>> but I would kindly ask you to not just block the
> > > > discussion and
> > > > > >>>> perhaps
> > > > > >>>>> help re-evaluating why they became “project
> rules”
> > > and if
> > > > the
> > > > > >>>> assumptions
> > > > > >>>>> were correct or still apply.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> The benefit would be:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> * Less problems in getting set-up (just clone
> > one
> > > > > >>> repo)
> > > > > >>>>>> * Simpler release (Only need to release one
> > > > > >>> repository … no
> > > > > >>>>> updating of version information in-between)
> > > > > >>>>>> * Less things that can go wrong (I remember
> when
> > > > > >>> compiler
> > > > > >>>> was
> > > > > >>>>> already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest wasn’t
> yet …
> > > there
> > > > were
> > > > > >>> issues
> > > > > >>>>> discussed on the list)
> > > > > >>>>>> * I would use the opportunity to clean up some
> > > things
> > > > > >>> in the
> > > > > >>>>> maven build, because despite the probably common
> > > > assumption …
> > > > > >>> I’m not
> > > > > >>>>> really happy with the usability of the maven
> build
> > > from a
> > > > > >>> user’s
> > > > > >>>>> perspective … I think there’s great room for
> > > improvement
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> In general I would propose to merge all 3
> > > repositories
> > > > > >>> into
> > > > > >>>> one.
> > > > > >>>>> Right now the Maven build would probably work
> with
> > > > different
> > > > > >>>> releases of
> > > > > >>>>> the compiler or typedefs but from what I can see
> …
> > > the Ant
> > > > > >>> release
> > > > > >>>> would
> > > > > >>>>> probably not work without modification. So the
> > whole
> > > idea
> > > > of
> > > > > >>>> releasing
> > > > > >>>>> separately seems to be more a theoretical one. I
> > > think in
> > > > the
> > > > > >>>> history of
> > > > > >>>>> FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done once
> (please
> > > correct
> > > > me
> > > > > >>> if I’m
> > > > > >>>>> wrong). If there are external entities only
> > > interested in
> > > > > >>> consuming
> > > > > >>>> parts
> > > > > >>>>> of the project, we could build source
> distribution
> > > for
> > > > these
> > > > > >>> that
> > > > > >>>> only
> > > > > >>>>> contain the parts they are interest in.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> * I propose to move the artifacts needed for
> the
> > > > > >>> build but
> > > > > >>>> not
> > > > > >>>>> being part of the build (build-tools,
> jburg-types)
> > > into a
> > > > > >>> separate
> > > > > >>>>> repository where they can be released
> independently
> > > and
> > > > don’t
> > > > > >>> cause
> > > > > >>>>> confusion like they are doing right now.
> > > > > >>>>>> * Then I would like to create a new repository
> > > (Let’s
> > > > > >>> call
> > > > > >>>> it
> > > > > >>>>> “royale”) which contains 3 directories: compiler,
> > > typedefs
> > > > and
> > > > > >>> asjs
> > > > > >>>> (or
> > > > > >>>>> even with the current “royale-“ prefix, I don’t
> > > really
> > > > > >>> care/mind).
> > > > > >>>>>> * Now comes the biggest block … I would need
> to
> > > > > >>> completely
> > > > > >>>>> rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the core of it
> > > would be
> > > > also
> > > > > >>> moved
> > > > > >>>> to the
> > > > > >>>>> new build-tools repository. This plugin would
> sort
> > > of be an
> > > > > >>> empty
> > > > > >>>> skeleton
> > > > > >>>>> to load compiler plugins. This is needed as Maven
> > > can’t
> > > > build a
> > > > > >>>> project
> > > > > >>>>> where a plugin used in the project is also part
> of
> > > the
> > > > build
> > > > > >>> itself.
> > > > > >>>> So we
> > > > > >>>>> couldn’t build all-in-one go without this change.
> > > > > >>>>>> * Next step would be to add a new
> royale-parent
> > > pom
> > > > > >>> in the
> > > > > >>>> new
> > > > > >>>>> root of the project, the 3 old parents would be
> > > updated to
> > > > use
> > > > > >>> the
> > > > > >>>> new
> > > > > >>>>> parent and a lot of duplicated configuration
> could
> > > be moved
> > > > > >>> there,
> > > > > >>>> hereby
> > > > > >>>>> greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> A migration plan, could be to :
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> * create a feature-branch in all 3
> repositories
> > > > > >>>>>> * create two new repos “royale” and
> > > > > >>> “royale-build-tools” (or
> > > > > >>>>> whatever you want to name them)
> > > > > >>>>>> * Start with using git submodules to import
> the
> > 3
> > > > > >>> branches
> > > > > >>>> into
> > > > > >>>>> the new (I know submodules really suck, but they
> > > would
> > > > only be
> > > > > >>>> needed until
> > > > > >>>>> everything is finished)
> > > > > >>>>>> * I would move/copy the build tools to the new
> > > repo
> > > > > >>> and
> > > > > >>>> start
> > > > > >>>>> working on the new maven plugin
> > > > > >>>>>> * Then I would need to update the old compiler
> > > repo to
> > > > > >>>> produce
> > > > > >>>>> something I can use as royale-maven-plugin
> plugins
> > > > > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the
> typedefs
> > to
> > > > > >>> use the
> > > > > >>>> new
> > > > > >>>>> plugin
> > > > > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the asjs
> repo
> > > to
> > > > > >>> use the
> > > > > >>>> new
> > > > > >>>>> plugin
> > > > > >>>>>> * Then I would add the new royale-parent pom
> > > > > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would simplify and
> > > deduplicate
> > > > > >>> the
> > > > > >>>>> configuration
> > > > > >>>>>> * Now I would definitely need some help with
> > > > > >>> adjusting the
> > > > > >>>> Ant
> > > > > >>>>> and possibly NPM build to these changes (Most of
> > them
> > > > should be
> > > > > >>>>> profile-names and maybe directory names or paths)
> > > > > >>>>>> * The last thing that would be required to be
> > > done now
> > > > > >>>> would be
> > > > > >>>>> to remove the submodules in the “royale”
> repository
> > > and to
> > > > > >>> import
> > > > > >>>> the real
> > > > > >>>>> repos
> > > > > >>>>>> * After this the 3 old repos could be archived
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I am really looking forward to some open
> > discussion
> > > on
> > > > > >>> this.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Chris
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> --
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Piotr Zarzycki
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > > >>>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> --
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Piotr Zarzycki
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > > >>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Piotr Zarzycki
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > > >> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Andrew Wetmore
> > > >
> > > > http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
Hi Piotr,
Makes perfect sense to me. guess I can start with the Royale-unit surefire support first. I can also start cleaning up the maven plugin without any of the big steps. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
So I would also suggest doing small steps, to keep all on board.
The only reason I brought up this discussion was to describe the final goal for me.
Chris
________________________________
Von: Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>
Gesendet: Montag, 1. Juni 2020 09:43
An: Apache Royale Development <de...@royale.apache.org>
Betreff: Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Carlos,
Like I stated I wanted to understand what Chris did, so I will be the next
RM after Harbs. I'm going to use Chris's improvements and see what exactly
they means.
I didn't check his video but I hope I have there complementary
instructions. I'm familiar with Maven - I expect that all of that will take
max 1 day and I will have RC1. If not we need to improve before any Big
steps described here.
I do have couple of some sort of requirements towards those steps if they
are really going to happen - before I talk about them I'm going to be RM.
I hope it makes sense to you.
Piotr
On Mon, Jun 1, 2020, 9:36 AM Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just to add to this proposal thread expressing my opinion. I think this
> change will have a huge positive impact in the project:
>
> 1.- Reduce repos from 3 to just 1, so reducing all actions and overhead all
> that implies.
> 2.- Builds will be much more easy since all is contained in one repo
> instead of gathering from three. Right now builds in one repo must count
> with the build produced by other(s) in the chain of execution.
> 3.- Remove duplicated config that could be just in one place reducing
> complexity. Right now many configs are duplicated in each repo due to the
> actual 3 repo layout.
> 4.- Releases will turn just to 3 commands on a terminal what will be a big
> point for all RMs and the project allowing us to release much more easy.
> 5.- Less commands means less errors and more automation
> 6.- Times to release will cut under the current 1h 30'' (as you can defer
> from the sum of the times of each video posted by Chris).
> 7.- The process will continue improving towards a maven compliant build and
> release process with all the benefits that following a standard process
> means and how all of that means to the actual Apache build and release
> process.
> 8.- Improving over time will be more easy too.
>
> For me this is one of the key points for reaching 1.0, since will mean we
> are really prepared to do monthly (or bi-monthly if we want) releases of
> Royale.
>
> About others as RMs. I think is needed to understand the actual process and
> know what will mean to improve this way. So I think is good Harbs do the
> next release in the actual state to gain that knowledge. In exchange I
> think Piotr already knows very close since he did 0.9.6, so don't think is
> needed.
>
> I think the optimal time frame to work on this could be:
>
> 1.- Harbs work this June on release. Here we could improve on version
> numbers [1], since we are adding lots of stuff in each release and the bug
> fixing is implied. Maybe as we settle third version numbers will be more
> important, since will be less new stuff and maybe more fixing, or we could
> do minor releases and bug fixing releases...
> 2.- Start working on this "one repo feature".
>
> Thanks
>
> Carlos
>
> [1] https://semver.org/
>
>
> El dom., 31 may. 2020 a las 13:15, Christofer Dutz (<
> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>) escribió:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > so thankfully Carlos watched the full 1,5 hours of my release video and
> > told me it was ok ... so I'll share them with you:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/open?id=1BDKG-zPW3CoWLI0KQJDO5PGyEJQtKRb4
> >
> > In video 1 (27 Minutes) I am releasing the "compiler "
> > In video 2 (10 Minutes) I am releasing the "typedefs"
> > In video 3 (50 Minutes) I am releasing the "asjs/framework"
> >
> > Most additional steps are just related to the separation of the 3 repos
> > ...
> > If we were to merge them and I would do my refactoring to the
> > royale-maven-plugin, it would just be the steps of video 1.
> >
> > I also added some background infos on what's happening in which step and
> > why I'm doing things the way I am ... pehaps it makes the 1,5h a little
> > more educational as if I just typed in the commands ... will prepare a
> > text-document with all the steps ASAP.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 31.05.20, 09:29 schrieb "Yishay Weiss" <yi...@hotmail.com>:
> >
> > Alex might want to confirm, but I’m pretty sure DST issue was fixed.
> >
> > From: Greg Dove<ma...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2020 1:40 AM
> > To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
> >
> > Chris, Harbs & others,
> >
> > Sorry I didn't reply earlier on this thread, I have been very focused
> > on
> > some intense work tasks, consuming extra hours in each day for some
> > time
> > now.
> >
> > Unless I misunderstood something, I think we already had consensus on
> > top-level things like:
> >
> > a) we need the royale sdk (as3 language support + application
> > framework +
> > compiler + typedefs) to continue to be usable via ant, maven, npm and
> > possibly other future build tools
> > b) we need the distribution/artifacts to be validated for each of the
> > end-user supported build tools
> > c) we need the release process to be as simple and streamlined as
> > possible,
> > while still keeping quality checks in place.
> >
> > This is just my limited interpretation/synthesis of discussions to
> > date, so
> > I hope it it makes sense. There were some expressions that certain
> > things
> > had to be done a certain way at (c) in order to achieve (b).
> > If my expression above (representing my understanding) is correct,
> > then I
> > really don't care what tech we use to achieve (c), so long as (a) and
> > (b)
> > are achieved. I guess the only other thing I would add is that
> > whatever we
> > use for (c) should be easy to understand and maintain, but perhaps
> > that is
> > inherent in the 'simple and streamlined' part of what I expressed.
> >
> > Chris,
> > Thanks for investing your time in this, and for your proposal. If my
> > understanding above is correct then I think your proposal covers that
> > along
> > with the general improvements in maven configurations and support.
> > I'll try to find time to watch the video in the coming week.
> >
> > One specific comment about: ' perhaps even help the automated testing
> > in
> > the ASJS repo.'
> > At the moment there is a RoyaleUnit ant task that Josh created. If
> > RoyaleUnit could somehow be supported via maven that would be
> awesome.
> > I
> > know you have other approaches as well for automated UI testing, but
> > RoyaleUnit permits re-use of legacy FlexUnit tests, so supporting
> that
> > via
> > maven would be a major plus, I think.
> >
> > Harbs,
> > Thanks for the suggestion that I participate as RM. I only understand
> > the
> > current process in a very abstract sense, apart from the time I
> watched
> > Chris and Carlos going through the first 7 steps.
> > I agree that, in general, it's better to understand a process before
> > decisions relating to improvements are considered for that process,
> > and I
> > know I do not really understand it well. But I don't think that needs
> > to
> > include me, and would prefer not to be RM in the near term. I will be
> > happy
> > to do this at some point, but I envisage my time being quite
> > pre-occupied
> > with asjs (particularly emulation) work over the next couple of
> > months, and
> > prefer to keep my limited neurons focused on that for now. Basically,
> > I am
> > happy to defer to others here.
> >
> > As an aside, one of the issues identified in recent weeks was the DST
> > alignment issue which seemed to require DST alignment between RM's
> > local
> > machine and the CI server. Perhaps that is fixed now, I am not sure.
> > If it
> > is not then, based on the original description of the cause of that
> > problem, it might preclude me being RM until it is fixed in any case,
> > because that misalignment would hold true most of the year for me (I
> > would
> > consider it important to fix, but not urgent to fix because we have,
> I
> > believe, no others currently from the southern hemisphere who could
> be
> > RM
> > right now anyway).
> >
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 4:02 AM Christofer Dutz <
> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Today I just prepared my forks of royale again and did a full
> > release of
> > > all 3 repos and did a video recording of that.
> > > I did find some minor quirks which I'll whip up a PR for (no
> profile
> > name
> > > or directory changes).
> > >
> > > As soon as I am finished cutting the video and removed lots minutes
> > of
> > > jewl-theme-compilation stuff I'll publish the link to the videos
> > here.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > Am 28.05.20, 18:03 schrieb "Andrew Wetmore" <co...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > Seems like the simplest way.
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:55 PM Christofer Dutz <
> > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Infra says there's nothing in-between all or nothing with
> > github :-(
> > > >
> > > > So I'll probably go down the google doc route and have the
> text
> > > imported
> > > > by one of you folks.
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Am 28.05.20, 17:38 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > I’m going offline for two days so I’ll be quiet for a
> > while, but
> > > it
> > > > might be a good idea to ask infra whether they have a
> solution
> > to
> > > this
> > > > problem.
> > > >
> > > > Harbs
> > > >
> > > > > On May 28, 2020, at 5:36 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > well perhaps searching for some experiences with this
> ...
> > > > > my gut-feeling would make me expect to have the wiki
> > content
> > > > replaced by Viagra ads ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > But it would be in git, so easily undoable ....
> > > > >
> > > > > I did find this however:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.growingwiththeweb.com/2016/07/enabling-pull-requests-on-github-wikis.html
> > > > >
> > > > > It's less convenient way, but probably safer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Am 28.05.20, 16:25 schrieb "Harbs" <
> > harbs.lists@gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm. That’s a problem I was not aware of...
> > > > >
> > > > > What do folks think about enabling public editing of
> > > wikis?[1]
> > > > >
> > > > > Harbs
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> > > > <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> On May 28, 2020, at 5:00 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hi all,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> so I just had a look ... it seems as if the "fork"
> > feature on
> > > > github doesn't fork the wiki too ...
> > > > >> So I could create my own pages, but not create PRs for
> > > > documentation ... or I just didn't find the docs on how to do
> > it.
> > > > >> Do you have any pointers for me?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Chris
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Am 28.05.20, 13:55 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > > > piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Chris,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> We are not using confluence at all. We are using
> Wiki
> > [1],
> > > but
> > > > you can
> > > > >> write document in whatever place you wanted to if
> you
> > are
> > > not
> > > > comfortable
> > > > >> with wiki.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Andrew,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Will you be willing to translate that document into
> > our Wiki
> > > > manner ?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> Piotr
> > > > >>
> > > > >> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:43 Christofer Dutz <
> > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > > >> napisał(a):
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Hi Piotr,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I think the Royale project could grant my user write
> > > permissions to
> > > > >>> confluence.
> > > > >>> Then I could write such a document there.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> But I could also do a google doc outside, if this is
> > more
> > > > convenient.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Chris
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Am 28.05.20, 13:39 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > > > piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Chris,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I think I would like to be after Harbs and
> eventually
> > > Greg. Yes
> > > > you can
> > > > >>> send me a link, write a document with absolutely
> > EVERY step
> > > > which I
> > > > >>> have to
> > > > >>> do in order to get release done. Even if you think
> > that I
> > > know
> > > > some
> > > > >>> steps
> > > > >>> like signing - you can in such places point into
> some
> > > existing
> > > > >>> document.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I would like to be able to comment on every step to
> > > confront if I
> > > > >>> really
> > > > >>> for example had to copy/paste some command or just
> > > opposite I
> > > > had to do
> > > > >>> much more than only copy/paste.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > >>> Piotr
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:27 Christofer Dutz <
> > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > > >>> napisał(a):
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Hi Piotr,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> we could change the configuration to use the jgit
> > plugin on
> > > the CI
> > > > >>> machine
> > > > >>>> and to use the default on local machines.
> > > > >>>> In that case you could do it on any machine you want
> > (also
> > > > windows)
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Who does releases in which order using which tooling
> > ... I
> > > don't
> > > > >>> really
> > > > >>>> care ...
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I'm just happy that there's a line building up of
> > people
> > > wanting
> > > > to
> > > > >>> do so
> > > > >>>> and I get to use fresh releases :-)
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> If there is anything I can help with ... just ping
> me
> > and
> > > I'll be
> > > > >>> happy to
> > > > >>>> help.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Chris
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Am 28.05.20, 13:18 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > > > >>> piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Hi Harbs,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I would like to be a release manager as well, but
> > using
> > > Chri's
> > > > >>>> implementation which as far as I know is in
> place. I
> > > would like
> > > > >>> to use
> > > > >>>> his
> > > > >>>> mentioned 3 steps and see how much things I will
> > have to
> > > do on
> > > > >>> my own
> > > > >>>> to
> > > > >>>> make release happen. I know that I will have to do
> > that
> > > on Mac,
> > > > >>> cause
> > > > >>>> there
> > > > >>>> some Maven/Git/Jenkins related plugin which allows
> > use
> > > Jenkins,
> > > > >>> but it
> > > > >>>> prevents me from pushing artifacts from windows.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I have some thoughts about above proposition, but
> I
> > will
> > > wait
> > > > >>> till we
> > > > >>>> all
> > > > >>>> pass trough the release process.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>> Piotr
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 11:06 Christofer Dutz <
> > > > >>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > > >>>> napisał(a):
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> Hi Harbs,
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> makes sense.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Chris
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" <
> > harbs.lists@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Hi Chris,
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Thanks for you work helping with the 0.9.7
> release
> > as
> > > well.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> I’m definitely open to improving the structure
> and
> > the
> > > > >>> process.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> My biggest hesitation is that I don’t understand
> > the
> > > > >>> current
> > > > >>>> release
> > > > >>>>> process well enough. Until recently Alex was the
> > only one
> > > who
> > > > >>> really
> > > > >>>>> understood it. Yishay just went through the process
> > so he
> > > has
> > > > >>> a good
> > > > >>>>> understanding now. I plan on doing another release
> > the week
> > > > >>>> following next
> > > > >>>>> (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope is that I
> will
> > > > >>> understand it
> > > > >>>> better
> > > > >>>>> at that point. I don’t know whether Greg Dove is
> > willing
> > > to do
> > > > >>> a
> > > > >>>> release,
> > > > >>>>> but I think it would be very valuable to get his
> > input as
> > > well.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> So my proposal is that we get some more of us
> > familiar
> > > > >>> with the
> > > > >>>> what
> > > > >>>>> and the why of the current process. I want to
> > understand
> > > what
> > > > >>> was
> > > > >>>> done and
> > > > >>>>> why it was done. I don’t feel comfortable having an
> > > opinion on
> > > > >>>> changing
> > > > >>>>> things until I can weigh the pros and cons. I’d
> like
> > more
> > > of
> > > > >>> us to
> > > > >>>> be in
> > > > >>>>> the same position so we will be in the position of
> > building
> > > > >>>> consensus on
> > > > >>>>> changes. The reason I hope that Greg Dove
> > specifically
> > > does a
> > > > >>>> release is
> > > > >>>>> because I feel he’s pretty neutral on technology
> and
> > I
> > > think
> > > > >>> he’ll
> > > > >>>> have
> > > > >>>>> good valuable input.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> So here’s my proposal:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> 1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3 releases in
> > rapid
> > > > >>> succession
> > > > >>>>> without making too many changes.
> > > > >>>>> 2. Let’s try and get as many of us familiar with
> > that
> > > > >>> process as
> > > > >>>>> possible.
> > > > >>>>> 3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss the pain
> points
> > and
> > > > >>> what can
> > > > >>>> be
> > > > >>>>> done to improve the structure and/or the process
> > with pros
> > > and
> > > > >>> cons.
> > > > >>>> Maybe
> > > > >>>>> your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe something
> > else?
> > > > >>> Similar?
> > > > >>>> Don’t
> > > > >>>>> know, but I’d like to get to the point where we can
> > have an
> > > > >>>> intelligent
> > > > >>>>> discussion on the topic with different points of
> > view. I
> > > don’t
> > > > >>> think
> > > > >>>> we’re
> > > > >>>>> quite there yet.
> > > > >>>>> 4. Carefully start implementing changes. Making
> big
> > > > >>> changes is
> > > > >>>> often
> > > > >>>>> disruptive and is often the cause of conflict. This
> > is
> > > nothing
> > > > >>>> specific to
> > > > >>>>> us, and there’s even accepted advice on the topic.
> I
> > > suggest
> > > > >>> we all
> > > > >>>> read
> > > > >>>>> and follow James Duncan Davidson's “rules for
> > > > >>> revolutionaries”[1].
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> I appreciate having your proposed changes to
> > ponder the
> > > > >>> next
> > > > >>>> couple of
> > > > >>>>> weeks.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> In the meantime, please by all means, dive into
> > Royale
> > > and
> > > > >>> create
> > > > >>>>> issues, pull requests, let us know difficulties,
> > etc. I’ll
> > > > >>> make my
> > > > >>>> best
> > > > >>>>> effort to be as responsive as possible and help
> > where I
> > > can. If
> > > > >>>> you’re
> > > > >>>>> feeling frustration, please reach out to me on
> Slack.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Does this make sense?
> > > > >>>>> Harbs
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> [1]http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries
> <
> > > > >>>>> http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Christofer Dutz <
> > > > >>>>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> congrats to the successful release of 0.9.7 … it
> > greatly
> > > > >>>> simplified
> > > > >>>>> the last PLC4X release to have the artifacts out
> > there in
> > > the
> > > > >>> wild.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I would really like to see Royale as the tool in
> my
> > > > >>> toolbox for
> > > > >>>>> building industrial UI applications as I sort of am
> > not
> > > that
> > > > >>> happy
> > > > >>>> with the
> > > > >>>>> other existing alternatives.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> In order to do this I know that I have some areas
> of
> > > > >>> expertise
> > > > >>>> I can
> > > > >>>>> offer to the project … Writing ActionScript and
> MXML
> > code
> > > is
> > > > >>>> definitely not
> > > > >>>>> where I can help best.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> However I’m really good at Java, Maven and Apache
> > > > >>>> Infrastructure. I
> > > > >>>>> know that development is most active in the ASJS
> > repo but I
> > > > >>> would be
> > > > >>>> happy
> > > > >>>>> to help on the other sides ... perhaps even help
> the
> > > automated
> > > > >>>> testing in
> > > > >>>>> the ASJS repo.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I would have one proposal on how to really
> simplify
> > > > >>> things,
> > > > >>>> but I
> > > > >>>>> would be hesitant to start working on this before
> we
> > have
> > > > >>> consensus
> > > > >>>> on this
> > > > >>>>> here.
> > > > >>>>>> It would probably involve multiple weeks of full
> > time
> > > > >>> work in
> > > > >>>> total
> > > > >>>>> to do it for me, but I would be happy to do it, if
> > the
> > > project
> > > > >>> would
> > > > >>>> accept
> > > > >>>>> it in the end and you folks would be willing to
> help
> > with
> > > the
> > > > >>> parts
> > > > >>>> I’m not
> > > > >>>>> too deep into (Ant-, NPM build adjustments). So
> > that’s why
> > > I’m
> > > > >>>> bringing
> > > > >>>>> this up here first. I know it might question some
> > unwritten
> > > > >>> project
> > > > >>>> rules,
> > > > >>>>> but I would kindly ask you to not just block the
> > > discussion and
> > > > >>>> perhaps
> > > > >>>>> help re-evaluating why they became “project rules”
> > and if
> > > the
> > > > >>>> assumptions
> > > > >>>>> were correct or still apply.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> The benefit would be:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> * Less problems in getting set-up (just clone
> one
> > > > >>> repo)
> > > > >>>>>> * Simpler release (Only need to release one
> > > > >>> repository … no
> > > > >>>>> updating of version information in-between)
> > > > >>>>>> * Less things that can go wrong (I remember when
> > > > >>> compiler
> > > > >>>> was
> > > > >>>>> already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest wasn’t yet …
> > there
> > > were
> > > > >>> issues
> > > > >>>>> discussed on the list)
> > > > >>>>>> * I would use the opportunity to clean up some
> > things
> > > > >>> in the
> > > > >>>>> maven build, because despite the probably common
> > > assumption …
> > > > >>> I’m not
> > > > >>>>> really happy with the usability of the maven build
> > from a
> > > > >>> user’s
> > > > >>>>> perspective … I think there’s great room for
> > improvement
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> In general I would propose to merge all 3
> > repositories
> > > > >>> into
> > > > >>>> one.
> > > > >>>>> Right now the Maven build would probably work with
> > > different
> > > > >>>> releases of
> > > > >>>>> the compiler or typedefs but from what I can see …
> > the Ant
> > > > >>> release
> > > > >>>> would
> > > > >>>>> probably not work without modification. So the
> whole
> > idea
> > > of
> > > > >>>> releasing
> > > > >>>>> separately seems to be more a theoretical one. I
> > think in
> > > the
> > > > >>>> history of
> > > > >>>>> FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done once (please
> > correct
> > > me
> > > > >>> if I’m
> > > > >>>>> wrong). If there are external entities only
> > interested in
> > > > >>> consuming
> > > > >>>> parts
> > > > >>>>> of the project, we could build source distribution
> > for
> > > these
> > > > >>> that
> > > > >>>> only
> > > > >>>>> contain the parts they are interest in.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> * I propose to move the artifacts needed for the
> > > > >>> build but
> > > > >>>> not
> > > > >>>>> being part of the build (build-tools, jburg-types)
> > into a
> > > > >>> separate
> > > > >>>>> repository where they can be released independently
> > and
> > > don’t
> > > > >>> cause
> > > > >>>>> confusion like they are doing right now.
> > > > >>>>>> * Then I would like to create a new repository
> > (Let’s
> > > > >>> call
> > > > >>>> it
> > > > >>>>> “royale”) which contains 3 directories: compiler,
> > typedefs
> > > and
> > > > >>> asjs
> > > > >>>> (or
> > > > >>>>> even with the current “royale-“ prefix, I don’t
> > really
> > > > >>> care/mind).
> > > > >>>>>> * Now comes the biggest block … I would need to
> > > > >>> completely
> > > > >>>>> rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the core of it
> > would be
> > > also
> > > > >>> moved
> > > > >>>> to the
> > > > >>>>> new build-tools repository. This plugin would sort
> > of be an
> > > > >>> empty
> > > > >>>> skeleton
> > > > >>>>> to load compiler plugins. This is needed as Maven
> > can’t
> > > build a
> > > > >>>> project
> > > > >>>>> where a plugin used in the project is also part of
> > the
> > > build
> > > > >>> itself.
> > > > >>>> So we
> > > > >>>>> couldn’t build all-in-one go without this change.
> > > > >>>>>> * Next step would be to add a new royale-parent
> > pom
> > > > >>> in the
> > > > >>>> new
> > > > >>>>> root of the project, the 3 old parents would be
> > updated to
> > > use
> > > > >>> the
> > > > >>>> new
> > > > >>>>> parent and a lot of duplicated configuration could
> > be moved
> > > > >>> there,
> > > > >>>> hereby
> > > > >>>>> greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> A migration plan, could be to :
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> * create a feature-branch in all 3 repositories
> > > > >>>>>> * create two new repos “royale” and
> > > > >>> “royale-build-tools” (or
> > > > >>>>> whatever you want to name them)
> > > > >>>>>> * Start with using git submodules to import the
> 3
> > > > >>> branches
> > > > >>>> into
> > > > >>>>> the new (I know submodules really suck, but they
> > would
> > > only be
> > > > >>>> needed until
> > > > >>>>> everything is finished)
> > > > >>>>>> * I would move/copy the build tools to the new
> > repo
> > > > >>> and
> > > > >>>> start
> > > > >>>>> working on the new maven plugin
> > > > >>>>>> * Then I would need to update the old compiler
> > repo to
> > > > >>>> produce
> > > > >>>>> something I can use as royale-maven-plugin plugins
> > > > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the typedefs
> to
> > > > >>> use the
> > > > >>>> new
> > > > >>>>> plugin
> > > > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the asjs repo
> > to
> > > > >>> use the
> > > > >>>> new
> > > > >>>>> plugin
> > > > >>>>>> * Then I would add the new royale-parent pom
> > > > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would simplify and
> > deduplicate
> > > > >>> the
> > > > >>>>> configuration
> > > > >>>>>> * Now I would definitely need some help with
> > > > >>> adjusting the
> > > > >>>> Ant
> > > > >>>>> and possibly NPM build to these changes (Most of
> them
> > > should be
> > > > >>>>> profile-names and maybe directory names or paths)
> > > > >>>>>> * The last thing that would be required to be
> > done now
> > > > >>>> would be
> > > > >>>>> to remove the submodules in the “royale” repository
> > and to
> > > > >>> import
> > > > >>>> the real
> > > > >>>>> repos
> > > > >>>>>> * After this the 3 old repos could be archived
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I am really looking forward to some open
> discussion
> > on
> > > > >>> this.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Chris
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> --
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Piotr Zarzycki
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > >>>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> --
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Piotr Zarzycki
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > >>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Piotr Zarzycki
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > >> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andrew Wetmore
> > >
> > > http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Posted by Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>.
Carlos,
Like I stated I wanted to understand what Chris did, so I will be the next
RM after Harbs. I'm going to use Chris's improvements and see what exactly
they means.
I didn't check his video but I hope I have there complementary
instructions. I'm familiar with Maven - I expect that all of that will take
max 1 day and I will have RC1. If not we need to improve before any Big
steps described here.
I do have couple of some sort of requirements towards those steps if they
are really going to happen - before I talk about them I'm going to be RM.
I hope it makes sense to you.
Piotr
On Mon, Jun 1, 2020, 9:36 AM Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just to add to this proposal thread expressing my opinion. I think this
> change will have a huge positive impact in the project:
>
> 1.- Reduce repos from 3 to just 1, so reducing all actions and overhead all
> that implies.
> 2.- Builds will be much more easy since all is contained in one repo
> instead of gathering from three. Right now builds in one repo must count
> with the build produced by other(s) in the chain of execution.
> 3.- Remove duplicated config that could be just in one place reducing
> complexity. Right now many configs are duplicated in each repo due to the
> actual 3 repo layout.
> 4.- Releases will turn just to 3 commands on a terminal what will be a big
> point for all RMs and the project allowing us to release much more easy.
> 5.- Less commands means less errors and more automation
> 6.- Times to release will cut under the current 1h 30'' (as you can defer
> from the sum of the times of each video posted by Chris).
> 7.- The process will continue improving towards a maven compliant build and
> release process with all the benefits that following a standard process
> means and how all of that means to the actual Apache build and release
> process.
> 8.- Improving over time will be more easy too.
>
> For me this is one of the key points for reaching 1.0, since will mean we
> are really prepared to do monthly (or bi-monthly if we want) releases of
> Royale.
>
> About others as RMs. I think is needed to understand the actual process and
> know what will mean to improve this way. So I think is good Harbs do the
> next release in the actual state to gain that knowledge. In exchange I
> think Piotr already knows very close since he did 0.9.6, so don't think is
> needed.
>
> I think the optimal time frame to work on this could be:
>
> 1.- Harbs work this June on release. Here we could improve on version
> numbers [1], since we are adding lots of stuff in each release and the bug
> fixing is implied. Maybe as we settle third version numbers will be more
> important, since will be less new stuff and maybe more fixing, or we could
> do minor releases and bug fixing releases...
> 2.- Start working on this "one repo feature".
>
> Thanks
>
> Carlos
>
> [1] https://semver.org/
>
>
> El dom., 31 may. 2020 a las 13:15, Christofer Dutz (<
> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>) escribió:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > so thankfully Carlos watched the full 1,5 hours of my release video and
> > told me it was ok ... so I'll share them with you:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/open?id=1BDKG-zPW3CoWLI0KQJDO5PGyEJQtKRb4
> >
> > In video 1 (27 Minutes) I am releasing the "compiler "
> > In video 2 (10 Minutes) I am releasing the "typedefs"
> > In video 3 (50 Minutes) I am releasing the "asjs/framework"
> >
> > Most additional steps are just related to the separation of the 3 repos
> > ...
> > If we were to merge them and I would do my refactoring to the
> > royale-maven-plugin, it would just be the steps of video 1.
> >
> > I also added some background infos on what's happening in which step and
> > why I'm doing things the way I am ... pehaps it makes the 1,5h a little
> > more educational as if I just typed in the commands ... will prepare a
> > text-document with all the steps ASAP.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 31.05.20, 09:29 schrieb "Yishay Weiss" <yi...@hotmail.com>:
> >
> > Alex might want to confirm, but I’m pretty sure DST issue was fixed.
> >
> > From: Greg Dove<ma...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2020 1:40 AM
> > To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
> >
> > Chris, Harbs & others,
> >
> > Sorry I didn't reply earlier on this thread, I have been very focused
> > on
> > some intense work tasks, consuming extra hours in each day for some
> > time
> > now.
> >
> > Unless I misunderstood something, I think we already had consensus on
> > top-level things like:
> >
> > a) we need the royale sdk (as3 language support + application
> > framework +
> > compiler + typedefs) to continue to be usable via ant, maven, npm and
> > possibly other future build tools
> > b) we need the distribution/artifacts to be validated for each of the
> > end-user supported build tools
> > c) we need the release process to be as simple and streamlined as
> > possible,
> > while still keeping quality checks in place.
> >
> > This is just my limited interpretation/synthesis of discussions to
> > date, so
> > I hope it it makes sense. There were some expressions that certain
> > things
> > had to be done a certain way at (c) in order to achieve (b).
> > If my expression above (representing my understanding) is correct,
> > then I
> > really don't care what tech we use to achieve (c), so long as (a) and
> > (b)
> > are achieved. I guess the only other thing I would add is that
> > whatever we
> > use for (c) should be easy to understand and maintain, but perhaps
> > that is
> > inherent in the 'simple and streamlined' part of what I expressed.
> >
> > Chris,
> > Thanks for investing your time in this, and for your proposal. If my
> > understanding above is correct then I think your proposal covers that
> > along
> > with the general improvements in maven configurations and support.
> > I'll try to find time to watch the video in the coming week.
> >
> > One specific comment about: ' perhaps even help the automated testing
> > in
> > the ASJS repo.'
> > At the moment there is a RoyaleUnit ant task that Josh created. If
> > RoyaleUnit could somehow be supported via maven that would be
> awesome.
> > I
> > know you have other approaches as well for automated UI testing, but
> > RoyaleUnit permits re-use of legacy FlexUnit tests, so supporting
> that
> > via
> > maven would be a major plus, I think.
> >
> > Harbs,
> > Thanks for the suggestion that I participate as RM. I only understand
> > the
> > current process in a very abstract sense, apart from the time I
> watched
> > Chris and Carlos going through the first 7 steps.
> > I agree that, in general, it's better to understand a process before
> > decisions relating to improvements are considered for that process,
> > and I
> > know I do not really understand it well. But I don't think that needs
> > to
> > include me, and would prefer not to be RM in the near term. I will be
> > happy
> > to do this at some point, but I envisage my time being quite
> > pre-occupied
> > with asjs (particularly emulation) work over the next couple of
> > months, and
> > prefer to keep my limited neurons focused on that for now. Basically,
> > I am
> > happy to defer to others here.
> >
> > As an aside, one of the issues identified in recent weeks was the DST
> > alignment issue which seemed to require DST alignment between RM's
> > local
> > machine and the CI server. Perhaps that is fixed now, I am not sure.
> > If it
> > is not then, based on the original description of the cause of that
> > problem, it might preclude me being RM until it is fixed in any case,
> > because that misalignment would hold true most of the year for me (I
> > would
> > consider it important to fix, but not urgent to fix because we have,
> I
> > believe, no others currently from the southern hemisphere who could
> be
> > RM
> > right now anyway).
> >
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 4:02 AM Christofer Dutz <
> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Today I just prepared my forks of royale again and did a full
> > release of
> > > all 3 repos and did a video recording of that.
> > > I did find some minor quirks which I'll whip up a PR for (no
> profile
> > name
> > > or directory changes).
> > >
> > > As soon as I am finished cutting the video and removed lots minutes
> > of
> > > jewl-theme-compilation stuff I'll publish the link to the videos
> > here.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > Am 28.05.20, 18:03 schrieb "Andrew Wetmore" <co...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > Seems like the simplest way.
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:55 PM Christofer Dutz <
> > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Infra says there's nothing in-between all or nothing with
> > github :-(
> > > >
> > > > So I'll probably go down the google doc route and have the
> text
> > > imported
> > > > by one of you folks.
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Am 28.05.20, 17:38 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > I’m going offline for two days so I’ll be quiet for a
> > while, but
> > > it
> > > > might be a good idea to ask infra whether they have a
> solution
> > to
> > > this
> > > > problem.
> > > >
> > > > Harbs
> > > >
> > > > > On May 28, 2020, at 5:36 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > well perhaps searching for some experiences with this
> ...
> > > > > my gut-feeling would make me expect to have the wiki
> > content
> > > > replaced by Viagra ads ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > But it would be in git, so easily undoable ....
> > > > >
> > > > > I did find this however:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.growingwiththeweb.com/2016/07/enabling-pull-requests-on-github-wikis.html
> > > > >
> > > > > It's less convenient way, but probably safer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Am 28.05.20, 16:25 schrieb "Harbs" <
> > harbs.lists@gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm. That’s a problem I was not aware of...
> > > > >
> > > > > What do folks think about enabling public editing of
> > > wikis?[1]
> > > > >
> > > > > Harbs
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> > > > <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> On May 28, 2020, at 5:00 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hi all,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> so I just had a look ... it seems as if the "fork"
> > feature on
> > > > github doesn't fork the wiki too ...
> > > > >> So I could create my own pages, but not create PRs for
> > > > documentation ... or I just didn't find the docs on how to do
> > it.
> > > > >> Do you have any pointers for me?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Chris
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Am 28.05.20, 13:55 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > > > piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Chris,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> We are not using confluence at all. We are using
> Wiki
> > [1],
> > > but
> > > > you can
> > > > >> write document in whatever place you wanted to if
> you
> > are
> > > not
> > > > comfortable
> > > > >> with wiki.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Andrew,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Will you be willing to translate that document into
> > our Wiki
> > > > manner ?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> Piotr
> > > > >>
> > > > >> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:43 Christofer Dutz <
> > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > > >> napisał(a):
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Hi Piotr,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I think the Royale project could grant my user write
> > > permissions to
> > > > >>> confluence.
> > > > >>> Then I could write such a document there.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> But I could also do a google doc outside, if this is
> > more
> > > > convenient.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Chris
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Am 28.05.20, 13:39 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > > > piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Chris,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I think I would like to be after Harbs and
> eventually
> > > Greg. Yes
> > > > you can
> > > > >>> send me a link, write a document with absolutely
> > EVERY step
> > > > which I
> > > > >>> have to
> > > > >>> do in order to get release done. Even if you think
> > that I
> > > know
> > > > some
> > > > >>> steps
> > > > >>> like signing - you can in such places point into
> some
> > > existing
> > > > >>> document.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I would like to be able to comment on every step to
> > > confront if I
> > > > >>> really
> > > > >>> for example had to copy/paste some command or just
> > > opposite I
> > > > had to do
> > > > >>> much more than only copy/paste.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > >>> Piotr
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:27 Christofer Dutz <
> > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > > >>> napisał(a):
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Hi Piotr,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> we could change the configuration to use the jgit
> > plugin on
> > > the CI
> > > > >>> machine
> > > > >>>> and to use the default on local machines.
> > > > >>>> In that case you could do it on any machine you want
> > (also
> > > > windows)
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Who does releases in which order using which tooling
> > ... I
> > > don't
> > > > >>> really
> > > > >>>> care ...
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I'm just happy that there's a line building up of
> > people
> > > wanting
> > > > to
> > > > >>> do so
> > > > >>>> and I get to use fresh releases :-)
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> If there is anything I can help with ... just ping
> me
> > and
> > > I'll be
> > > > >>> happy to
> > > > >>>> help.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Chris
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Am 28.05.20, 13:18 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > > > >>> piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Hi Harbs,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I would like to be a release manager as well, but
> > using
> > > Chri's
> > > > >>>> implementation which as far as I know is in
> place. I
> > > would like
> > > > >>> to use
> > > > >>>> his
> > > > >>>> mentioned 3 steps and see how much things I will
> > have to
> > > do on
> > > > >>> my own
> > > > >>>> to
> > > > >>>> make release happen. I know that I will have to do
> > that
> > > on Mac,
> > > > >>> cause
> > > > >>>> there
> > > > >>>> some Maven/Git/Jenkins related plugin which allows
> > use
> > > Jenkins,
> > > > >>> but it
> > > > >>>> prevents me from pushing artifacts from windows.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I have some thoughts about above proposition, but
> I
> > will
> > > wait
> > > > >>> till we
> > > > >>>> all
> > > > >>>> pass trough the release process.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>> Piotr
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 11:06 Christofer Dutz <
> > > > >>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > > >>>> napisał(a):
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> Hi Harbs,
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> makes sense.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Chris
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" <
> > harbs.lists@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Hi Chris,
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Thanks for you work helping with the 0.9.7
> release
> > as
> > > well.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> I’m definitely open to improving the structure
> and
> > the
> > > > >>> process.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> My biggest hesitation is that I don’t understand
> > the
> > > > >>> current
> > > > >>>> release
> > > > >>>>> process well enough. Until recently Alex was the
> > only one
> > > who
> > > > >>> really
> > > > >>>>> understood it. Yishay just went through the process
> > so he
> > > has
> > > > >>> a good
> > > > >>>>> understanding now. I plan on doing another release
> > the week
> > > > >>>> following next
> > > > >>>>> (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope is that I
> will
> > > > >>> understand it
> > > > >>>> better
> > > > >>>>> at that point. I don’t know whether Greg Dove is
> > willing
> > > to do
> > > > >>> a
> > > > >>>> release,
> > > > >>>>> but I think it would be very valuable to get his
> > input as
> > > well.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> So my proposal is that we get some more of us
> > familiar
> > > > >>> with the
> > > > >>>> what
> > > > >>>>> and the why of the current process. I want to
> > understand
> > > what
> > > > >>> was
> > > > >>>> done and
> > > > >>>>> why it was done. I don’t feel comfortable having an
> > > opinion on
> > > > >>>> changing
> > > > >>>>> things until I can weigh the pros and cons. I’d
> like
> > more
> > > of
> > > > >>> us to
> > > > >>>> be in
> > > > >>>>> the same position so we will be in the position of
> > building
> > > > >>>> consensus on
> > > > >>>>> changes. The reason I hope that Greg Dove
> > specifically
> > > does a
> > > > >>>> release is
> > > > >>>>> because I feel he’s pretty neutral on technology
> and
> > I
> > > think
> > > > >>> he’ll
> > > > >>>> have
> > > > >>>>> good valuable input.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> So here’s my proposal:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> 1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3 releases in
> > rapid
> > > > >>> succession
> > > > >>>>> without making too many changes.
> > > > >>>>> 2. Let’s try and get as many of us familiar with
> > that
> > > > >>> process as
> > > > >>>>> possible.
> > > > >>>>> 3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss the pain
> points
> > and
> > > > >>> what can
> > > > >>>> be
> > > > >>>>> done to improve the structure and/or the process
> > with pros
> > > and
> > > > >>> cons.
> > > > >>>> Maybe
> > > > >>>>> your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe something
> > else?
> > > > >>> Similar?
> > > > >>>> Don’t
> > > > >>>>> know, but I’d like to get to the point where we can
> > have an
> > > > >>>> intelligent
> > > > >>>>> discussion on the topic with different points of
> > view. I
> > > don’t
> > > > >>> think
> > > > >>>> we’re
> > > > >>>>> quite there yet.
> > > > >>>>> 4. Carefully start implementing changes. Making
> big
> > > > >>> changes is
> > > > >>>> often
> > > > >>>>> disruptive and is often the cause of conflict. This
> > is
> > > nothing
> > > > >>>> specific to
> > > > >>>>> us, and there’s even accepted advice on the topic.
> I
> > > suggest
> > > > >>> we all
> > > > >>>> read
> > > > >>>>> and follow James Duncan Davidson's “rules for
> > > > >>> revolutionaries”[1].
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> I appreciate having your proposed changes to
> > ponder the
> > > > >>> next
> > > > >>>> couple of
> > > > >>>>> weeks.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> In the meantime, please by all means, dive into
> > Royale
> > > and
> > > > >>> create
> > > > >>>>> issues, pull requests, let us know difficulties,
> > etc. I’ll
> > > > >>> make my
> > > > >>>> best
> > > > >>>>> effort to be as responsive as possible and help
> > where I
> > > can. If
> > > > >>>> you’re
> > > > >>>>> feeling frustration, please reach out to me on
> Slack.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Does this make sense?
> > > > >>>>> Harbs
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> [1]http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries
> <
> > > > >>>>> http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Christofer Dutz <
> > > > >>>>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> congrats to the successful release of 0.9.7 … it
> > greatly
> > > > >>>> simplified
> > > > >>>>> the last PLC4X release to have the artifacts out
> > there in
> > > the
> > > > >>> wild.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I would really like to see Royale as the tool in
> my
> > > > >>> toolbox for
> > > > >>>>> building industrial UI applications as I sort of am
> > not
> > > that
> > > > >>> happy
> > > > >>>> with the
> > > > >>>>> other existing alternatives.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> In order to do this I know that I have some areas
> of
> > > > >>> expertise
> > > > >>>> I can
> > > > >>>>> offer to the project … Writing ActionScript and
> MXML
> > code
> > > is
> > > > >>>> definitely not
> > > > >>>>> where I can help best.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> However I’m really good at Java, Maven and Apache
> > > > >>>> Infrastructure. I
> > > > >>>>> know that development is most active in the ASJS
> > repo but I
> > > > >>> would be
> > > > >>>> happy
> > > > >>>>> to help on the other sides ... perhaps even help
> the
> > > automated
> > > > >>>> testing in
> > > > >>>>> the ASJS repo.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I would have one proposal on how to really
> simplify
> > > > >>> things,
> > > > >>>> but I
> > > > >>>>> would be hesitant to start working on this before
> we
> > have
> > > > >>> consensus
> > > > >>>> on this
> > > > >>>>> here.
> > > > >>>>>> It would probably involve multiple weeks of full
> > time
> > > > >>> work in
> > > > >>>> total
> > > > >>>>> to do it for me, but I would be happy to do it, if
> > the
> > > project
> > > > >>> would
> > > > >>>> accept
> > > > >>>>> it in the end and you folks would be willing to
> help
> > with
> > > the
> > > > >>> parts
> > > > >>>> I’m not
> > > > >>>>> too deep into (Ant-, NPM build adjustments). So
> > that’s why
> > > I’m
> > > > >>>> bringing
> > > > >>>>> this up here first. I know it might question some
> > unwritten
> > > > >>> project
> > > > >>>> rules,
> > > > >>>>> but I would kindly ask you to not just block the
> > > discussion and
> > > > >>>> perhaps
> > > > >>>>> help re-evaluating why they became “project rules”
> > and if
> > > the
> > > > >>>> assumptions
> > > > >>>>> were correct or still apply.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> The benefit would be:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> * Less problems in getting set-up (just clone
> one
> > > > >>> repo)
> > > > >>>>>> * Simpler release (Only need to release one
> > > > >>> repository … no
> > > > >>>>> updating of version information in-between)
> > > > >>>>>> * Less things that can go wrong (I remember when
> > > > >>> compiler
> > > > >>>> was
> > > > >>>>> already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest wasn’t yet …
> > there
> > > were
> > > > >>> issues
> > > > >>>>> discussed on the list)
> > > > >>>>>> * I would use the opportunity to clean up some
> > things
> > > > >>> in the
> > > > >>>>> maven build, because despite the probably common
> > > assumption …
> > > > >>> I’m not
> > > > >>>>> really happy with the usability of the maven build
> > from a
> > > > >>> user’s
> > > > >>>>> perspective … I think there’s great room for
> > improvement
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> In general I would propose to merge all 3
> > repositories
> > > > >>> into
> > > > >>>> one.
> > > > >>>>> Right now the Maven build would probably work with
> > > different
> > > > >>>> releases of
> > > > >>>>> the compiler or typedefs but from what I can see …
> > the Ant
> > > > >>> release
> > > > >>>> would
> > > > >>>>> probably not work without modification. So the
> whole
> > idea
> > > of
> > > > >>>> releasing
> > > > >>>>> separately seems to be more a theoretical one. I
> > think in
> > > the
> > > > >>>> history of
> > > > >>>>> FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done once (please
> > correct
> > > me
> > > > >>> if I’m
> > > > >>>>> wrong). If there are external entities only
> > interested in
> > > > >>> consuming
> > > > >>>> parts
> > > > >>>>> of the project, we could build source distribution
> > for
> > > these
> > > > >>> that
> > > > >>>> only
> > > > >>>>> contain the parts they are interest in.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> * I propose to move the artifacts needed for the
> > > > >>> build but
> > > > >>>> not
> > > > >>>>> being part of the build (build-tools, jburg-types)
> > into a
> > > > >>> separate
> > > > >>>>> repository where they can be released independently
> > and
> > > don’t
> > > > >>> cause
> > > > >>>>> confusion like they are doing right now.
> > > > >>>>>> * Then I would like to create a new repository
> > (Let’s
> > > > >>> call
> > > > >>>> it
> > > > >>>>> “royale”) which contains 3 directories: compiler,
> > typedefs
> > > and
> > > > >>> asjs
> > > > >>>> (or
> > > > >>>>> even with the current “royale-“ prefix, I don’t
> > really
> > > > >>> care/mind).
> > > > >>>>>> * Now comes the biggest block … I would need to
> > > > >>> completely
> > > > >>>>> rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the core of it
> > would be
> > > also
> > > > >>> moved
> > > > >>>> to the
> > > > >>>>> new build-tools repository. This plugin would sort
> > of be an
> > > > >>> empty
> > > > >>>> skeleton
> > > > >>>>> to load compiler plugins. This is needed as Maven
> > can’t
> > > build a
> > > > >>>> project
> > > > >>>>> where a plugin used in the project is also part of
> > the
> > > build
> > > > >>> itself.
> > > > >>>> So we
> > > > >>>>> couldn’t build all-in-one go without this change.
> > > > >>>>>> * Next step would be to add a new royale-parent
> > pom
> > > > >>> in the
> > > > >>>> new
> > > > >>>>> root of the project, the 3 old parents would be
> > updated to
> > > use
> > > > >>> the
> > > > >>>> new
> > > > >>>>> parent and a lot of duplicated configuration could
> > be moved
> > > > >>> there,
> > > > >>>> hereby
> > > > >>>>> greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> A migration plan, could be to :
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> * create a feature-branch in all 3 repositories
> > > > >>>>>> * create two new repos “royale” and
> > > > >>> “royale-build-tools” (or
> > > > >>>>> whatever you want to name them)
> > > > >>>>>> * Start with using git submodules to import the
> 3
> > > > >>> branches
> > > > >>>> into
> > > > >>>>> the new (I know submodules really suck, but they
> > would
> > > only be
> > > > >>>> needed until
> > > > >>>>> everything is finished)
> > > > >>>>>> * I would move/copy the build tools to the new
> > repo
> > > > >>> and
> > > > >>>> start
> > > > >>>>> working on the new maven plugin
> > > > >>>>>> * Then I would need to update the old compiler
> > repo to
> > > > >>>> produce
> > > > >>>>> something I can use as royale-maven-plugin plugins
> > > > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the typedefs
> to
> > > > >>> use the
> > > > >>>> new
> > > > >>>>> plugin
> > > > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the asjs repo
> > to
> > > > >>> use the
> > > > >>>> new
> > > > >>>>> plugin
> > > > >>>>>> * Then I would add the new royale-parent pom
> > > > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would simplify and
> > deduplicate
> > > > >>> the
> > > > >>>>> configuration
> > > > >>>>>> * Now I would definitely need some help with
> > > > >>> adjusting the
> > > > >>>> Ant
> > > > >>>>> and possibly NPM build to these changes (Most of
> them
> > > should be
> > > > >>>>> profile-names and maybe directory names or paths)
> > > > >>>>>> * The last thing that would be required to be
> > done now
> > > > >>>> would be
> > > > >>>>> to remove the submodules in the “royale” repository
> > and to
> > > > >>> import
> > > > >>>> the real
> > > > >>>>> repos
> > > > >>>>>> * After this the 3 old repos could be archived
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I am really looking forward to some open
> discussion
> > on
> > > > >>> this.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Chris
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> --
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Piotr Zarzycki
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > >>>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> --
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Piotr Zarzycki
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > >>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Piotr Zarzycki
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > >> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andrew Wetmore
> > >
> > > http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi,
just to add to this proposal thread expressing my opinion. I think this
change will have a huge positive impact in the project:
1.- Reduce repos from 3 to just 1, so reducing all actions and overhead all
that implies.
2.- Builds will be much more easy since all is contained in one repo
instead of gathering from three. Right now builds in one repo must count
with the build produced by other(s) in the chain of execution.
3.- Remove duplicated config that could be just in one place reducing
complexity. Right now many configs are duplicated in each repo due to the
actual 3 repo layout.
4.- Releases will turn just to 3 commands on a terminal what will be a big
point for all RMs and the project allowing us to release much more easy.
5.- Less commands means less errors and more automation
6.- Times to release will cut under the current 1h 30'' (as you can defer
from the sum of the times of each video posted by Chris).
7.- The process will continue improving towards a maven compliant build and
release process with all the benefits that following a standard process
means and how all of that means to the actual Apache build and release
process.
8.- Improving over time will be more easy too.
For me this is one of the key points for reaching 1.0, since will mean we
are really prepared to do monthly (or bi-monthly if we want) releases of
Royale.
About others as RMs. I think is needed to understand the actual process and
know what will mean to improve this way. So I think is good Harbs do the
next release in the actual state to gain that knowledge. In exchange I
think Piotr already knows very close since he did 0.9.6, so don't think is
needed.
I think the optimal time frame to work on this could be:
1.- Harbs work this June on release. Here we could improve on version
numbers [1], since we are adding lots of stuff in each release and the bug
fixing is implied. Maybe as we settle third version numbers will be more
important, since will be less new stuff and maybe more fixing, or we could
do minor releases and bug fixing releases...
2.- Start working on this "one repo feature".
Thanks
Carlos
[1] https://semver.org/
El dom., 31 may. 2020 a las 13:15, Christofer Dutz (<
christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>) escribió:
> Hi all,
>
> so thankfully Carlos watched the full 1,5 hours of my release video and
> told me it was ok ... so I'll share them with you:
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1BDKG-zPW3CoWLI0KQJDO5PGyEJQtKRb4
>
> In video 1 (27 Minutes) I am releasing the "compiler "
> In video 2 (10 Minutes) I am releasing the "typedefs"
> In video 3 (50 Minutes) I am releasing the "asjs/framework"
>
> Most additional steps are just related to the separation of the 3 repos
> ...
> If we were to merge them and I would do my refactoring to the
> royale-maven-plugin, it would just be the steps of video 1.
>
> I also added some background infos on what's happening in which step and
> why I'm doing things the way I am ... pehaps it makes the 1,5h a little
> more educational as if I just typed in the commands ... will prepare a
> text-document with all the steps ASAP.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> Am 31.05.20, 09:29 schrieb "Yishay Weiss" <yi...@hotmail.com>:
>
> Alex might want to confirm, but I’m pretty sure DST issue was fixed.
>
> From: Greg Dove<ma...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2020 1:40 AM
> To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
>
> Chris, Harbs & others,
>
> Sorry I didn't reply earlier on this thread, I have been very focused
> on
> some intense work tasks, consuming extra hours in each day for some
> time
> now.
>
> Unless I misunderstood something, I think we already had consensus on
> top-level things like:
>
> a) we need the royale sdk (as3 language support + application
> framework +
> compiler + typedefs) to continue to be usable via ant, maven, npm and
> possibly other future build tools
> b) we need the distribution/artifacts to be validated for each of the
> end-user supported build tools
> c) we need the release process to be as simple and streamlined as
> possible,
> while still keeping quality checks in place.
>
> This is just my limited interpretation/synthesis of discussions to
> date, so
> I hope it it makes sense. There were some expressions that certain
> things
> had to be done a certain way at (c) in order to achieve (b).
> If my expression above (representing my understanding) is correct,
> then I
> really don't care what tech we use to achieve (c), so long as (a) and
> (b)
> are achieved. I guess the only other thing I would add is that
> whatever we
> use for (c) should be easy to understand and maintain, but perhaps
> that is
> inherent in the 'simple and streamlined' part of what I expressed.
>
> Chris,
> Thanks for investing your time in this, and for your proposal. If my
> understanding above is correct then I think your proposal covers that
> along
> with the general improvements in maven configurations and support.
> I'll try to find time to watch the video in the coming week.
>
> One specific comment about: ' perhaps even help the automated testing
> in
> the ASJS repo.'
> At the moment there is a RoyaleUnit ant task that Josh created. If
> RoyaleUnit could somehow be supported via maven that would be awesome.
> I
> know you have other approaches as well for automated UI testing, but
> RoyaleUnit permits re-use of legacy FlexUnit tests, so supporting that
> via
> maven would be a major plus, I think.
>
> Harbs,
> Thanks for the suggestion that I participate as RM. I only understand
> the
> current process in a very abstract sense, apart from the time I watched
> Chris and Carlos going through the first 7 steps.
> I agree that, in general, it's better to understand a process before
> decisions relating to improvements are considered for that process,
> and I
> know I do not really understand it well. But I don't think that needs
> to
> include me, and would prefer not to be RM in the near term. I will be
> happy
> to do this at some point, but I envisage my time being quite
> pre-occupied
> with asjs (particularly emulation) work over the next couple of
> months, and
> prefer to keep my limited neurons focused on that for now. Basically,
> I am
> happy to defer to others here.
>
> As an aside, one of the issues identified in recent weeks was the DST
> alignment issue which seemed to require DST alignment between RM's
> local
> machine and the CI server. Perhaps that is fixed now, I am not sure.
> If it
> is not then, based on the original description of the cause of that
> problem, it might preclude me being RM until it is fixed in any case,
> because that misalignment would hold true most of the year for me (I
> would
> consider it important to fix, but not urgent to fix because we have, I
> believe, no others currently from the southern hemisphere who could be
> RM
> right now anyway).
>
>
> Greg
>
> On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 4:02 AM Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today I just prepared my forks of royale again and did a full
> release of
> > all 3 repos and did a video recording of that.
> > I did find some minor quirks which I'll whip up a PR for (no profile
> name
> > or directory changes).
> >
> > As soon as I am finished cutting the video and removed lots minutes
> of
> > jewl-theme-compilation stuff I'll publish the link to the videos
> here.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > Am 28.05.20, 18:03 schrieb "Andrew Wetmore" <co...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > Seems like the simplest way.
> >
> > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:55 PM Christofer Dutz <
> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Infra says there's nothing in-between all or nothing with
> github :-(
> > >
> > > So I'll probably go down the google doc route and have the text
> > imported
> > > by one of you folks.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > > Am 28.05.20, 17:38 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > I’m going offline for two days so I’ll be quiet for a
> while, but
> > it
> > > might be a good idea to ask infra whether they have a solution
> to
> > this
> > > problem.
> > >
> > > Harbs
> > >
> > > > On May 28, 2020, at 5:36 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > well perhaps searching for some experiences with this ...
> > > > my gut-feeling would make me expect to have the wiki
> content
> > > replaced by Viagra ads ;-)
> > > >
> > > > But it would be in git, so easily undoable ....
> > > >
> > > > I did find this however:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.growingwiththeweb.com/2016/07/enabling-pull-requests-on-github-wikis.html
> > > >
> > > > It's less convenient way, but probably safer.
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Am 28.05.20, 16:25 schrieb "Harbs" <
> harbs.lists@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > Hmm. That’s a problem I was not aware of...
> > > >
> > > > What do folks think about enabling public editing of
> > wikis?[1]
> > > >
> > > > Harbs
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> On May 28, 2020, at 5:00 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi all,
> > > >>
> > > >> so I just had a look ... it seems as if the "fork"
> feature on
> > > github doesn't fork the wiki too ...
> > > >> So I could create my own pages, but not create PRs for
> > > documentation ... or I just didn't find the docs on how to do
> it.
> > > >> Do you have any pointers for me?
> > > >>
> > > >> Chris
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Am 28.05.20, 13:55 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > > piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > > >>
> > > >> Chris,
> > > >>
> > > >> We are not using confluence at all. We are using Wiki
> [1],
> > but
> > > you can
> > > >> write document in whatever place you wanted to if you
> are
> > not
> > > comfortable
> > > >> with wiki.
> > > >>
> > > >> Andrew,
> > > >>
> > > >> Will you be willing to translate that document into
> our Wiki
> > > manner ?
> > > >>
> > > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> Piotr
> > > >>
> > > >> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:43 Christofer Dutz <
> > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > >> napisał(a):
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hi Piotr,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I think the Royale project could grant my user write
> > permissions to
> > > >>> confluence.
> > > >>> Then I could write such a document there.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> But I could also do a google doc outside, if this is
> more
> > > convenient.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Chris
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Am 28.05.20, 13:39 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > > piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Chris,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I think I would like to be after Harbs and eventually
> > Greg. Yes
> > > you can
> > > >>> send me a link, write a document with absolutely
> EVERY step
> > > which I
> > > >>> have to
> > > >>> do in order to get release done. Even if you think
> that I
> > know
> > > some
> > > >>> steps
> > > >>> like signing - you can in such places point into some
> > existing
> > > >>> document.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I would like to be able to comment on every step to
> > confront if I
> > > >>> really
> > > >>> for example had to copy/paste some command or just
> > opposite I
> > > had to do
> > > >>> much more than only copy/paste.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks,
> > > >>> Piotr
> > > >>>
> > > >>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:27 Christofer Dutz <
> > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > >>> napisał(a):
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Hi Piotr,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> we could change the configuration to use the jgit
> plugin on
> > the CI
> > > >>> machine
> > > >>>> and to use the default on local machines.
> > > >>>> In that case you could do it on any machine you want
> (also
> > > windows)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Who does releases in which order using which tooling
> ... I
> > don't
> > > >>> really
> > > >>>> care ...
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I'm just happy that there's a line building up of
> people
> > wanting
> > > to
> > > >>> do so
> > > >>>> and I get to use fresh releases :-)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> If there is anything I can help with ... just ping me
> and
> > I'll be
> > > >>> happy to
> > > >>>> help.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Chris
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Am 28.05.20, 13:18 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > > >>> piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Hi Harbs,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I would like to be a release manager as well, but
> using
> > Chri's
> > > >>>> implementation which as far as I know is in place. I
> > would like
> > > >>> to use
> > > >>>> his
> > > >>>> mentioned 3 steps and see how much things I will
> have to
> > do on
> > > >>> my own
> > > >>>> to
> > > >>>> make release happen. I know that I will have to do
> that
> > on Mac,
> > > >>> cause
> > > >>>> there
> > > >>>> some Maven/Git/Jenkins related plugin which allows
> use
> > Jenkins,
> > > >>> but it
> > > >>>> prevents me from pushing artifacts from windows.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I have some thoughts about above proposition, but I
> will
> > wait
> > > >>> till we
> > > >>>> all
> > > >>>> pass trough the release process.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>> Piotr
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 11:06 Christofer Dutz <
> > > >>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > >>>> napisał(a):
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Hi Harbs,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> makes sense.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Chris
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" <
> harbs.lists@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Hi Chris,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Thanks for you work helping with the 0.9.7 release
> as
> > well.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I’m definitely open to improving the structure and
> the
> > > >>> process.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> My biggest hesitation is that I don’t understand
> the
> > > >>> current
> > > >>>> release
> > > >>>>> process well enough. Until recently Alex was the
> only one
> > who
> > > >>> really
> > > >>>>> understood it. Yishay just went through the process
> so he
> > has
> > > >>> a good
> > > >>>>> understanding now. I plan on doing another release
> the week
> > > >>>> following next
> > > >>>>> (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope is that I will
> > > >>> understand it
> > > >>>> better
> > > >>>>> at that point. I don’t know whether Greg Dove is
> willing
> > to do
> > > >>> a
> > > >>>> release,
> > > >>>>> but I think it would be very valuable to get his
> input as
> > well.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> So my proposal is that we get some more of us
> familiar
> > > >>> with the
> > > >>>> what
> > > >>>>> and the why of the current process. I want to
> understand
> > what
> > > >>> was
> > > >>>> done and
> > > >>>>> why it was done. I don’t feel comfortable having an
> > opinion on
> > > >>>> changing
> > > >>>>> things until I can weigh the pros and cons. I’d like
> more
> > of
> > > >>> us to
> > > >>>> be in
> > > >>>>> the same position so we will be in the position of
> building
> > > >>>> consensus on
> > > >>>>> changes. The reason I hope that Greg Dove
> specifically
> > does a
> > > >>>> release is
> > > >>>>> because I feel he’s pretty neutral on technology and
> I
> > think
> > > >>> he’ll
> > > >>>> have
> > > >>>>> good valuable input.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> So here’s my proposal:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> 1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3 releases in
> rapid
> > > >>> succession
> > > >>>>> without making too many changes.
> > > >>>>> 2. Let’s try and get as many of us familiar with
> that
> > > >>> process as
> > > >>>>> possible.
> > > >>>>> 3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss the pain points
> and
> > > >>> what can
> > > >>>> be
> > > >>>>> done to improve the structure and/or the process
> with pros
> > and
> > > >>> cons.
> > > >>>> Maybe
> > > >>>>> your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe something
> else?
> > > >>> Similar?
> > > >>>> Don’t
> > > >>>>> know, but I’d like to get to the point where we can
> have an
> > > >>>> intelligent
> > > >>>>> discussion on the topic with different points of
> view. I
> > don’t
> > > >>> think
> > > >>>> we’re
> > > >>>>> quite there yet.
> > > >>>>> 4. Carefully start implementing changes. Making big
> > > >>> changes is
> > > >>>> often
> > > >>>>> disruptive and is often the cause of conflict. This
> is
> > nothing
> > > >>>> specific to
> > > >>>>> us, and there’s even accepted advice on the topic. I
> > suggest
> > > >>> we all
> > > >>>> read
> > > >>>>> and follow James Duncan Davidson's “rules for
> > > >>> revolutionaries”[1].
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I appreciate having your proposed changes to
> ponder the
> > > >>> next
> > > >>>> couple of
> > > >>>>> weeks.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> In the meantime, please by all means, dive into
> Royale
> > and
> > > >>> create
> > > >>>>> issues, pull requests, let us know difficulties,
> etc. I’ll
> > > >>> make my
> > > >>>> best
> > > >>>>> effort to be as responsive as possible and help
> where I
> > can. If
> > > >>>> you’re
> > > >>>>> feeling frustration, please reach out to me on Slack.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Does this make sense?
> > > >>>>> Harbs
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> [1]http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries <
> > > >>>>> http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Christofer Dutz <
> > > >>>>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> congrats to the successful release of 0.9.7 … it
> greatly
> > > >>>> simplified
> > > >>>>> the last PLC4X release to have the artifacts out
> there in
> > the
> > > >>> wild.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I would really like to see Royale as the tool in my
> > > >>> toolbox for
> > > >>>>> building industrial UI applications as I sort of am
> not
> > that
> > > >>> happy
> > > >>>> with the
> > > >>>>> other existing alternatives.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> In order to do this I know that I have some areas of
> > > >>> expertise
> > > >>>> I can
> > > >>>>> offer to the project … Writing ActionScript and MXML
> code
> > is
> > > >>>> definitely not
> > > >>>>> where I can help best.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> However I’m really good at Java, Maven and Apache
> > > >>>> Infrastructure. I
> > > >>>>> know that development is most active in the ASJS
> repo but I
> > > >>> would be
> > > >>>> happy
> > > >>>>> to help on the other sides ... perhaps even help the
> > automated
> > > >>>> testing in
> > > >>>>> the ASJS repo.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I would have one proposal on how to really simplify
> > > >>> things,
> > > >>>> but I
> > > >>>>> would be hesitant to start working on this before we
> have
> > > >>> consensus
> > > >>>> on this
> > > >>>>> here.
> > > >>>>>> It would probably involve multiple weeks of full
> time
> > > >>> work in
> > > >>>> total
> > > >>>>> to do it for me, but I would be happy to do it, if
> the
> > project
> > > >>> would
> > > >>>> accept
> > > >>>>> it in the end and you folks would be willing to help
> with
> > the
> > > >>> parts
> > > >>>> I’m not
> > > >>>>> too deep into (Ant-, NPM build adjustments). So
> that’s why
> > I’m
> > > >>>> bringing
> > > >>>>> this up here first. I know it might question some
> unwritten
> > > >>> project
> > > >>>> rules,
> > > >>>>> but I would kindly ask you to not just block the
> > discussion and
> > > >>>> perhaps
> > > >>>>> help re-evaluating why they became “project rules”
> and if
> > the
> > > >>>> assumptions
> > > >>>>> were correct or still apply.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> The benefit would be:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> * Less problems in getting set-up (just clone one
> > > >>> repo)
> > > >>>>>> * Simpler release (Only need to release one
> > > >>> repository … no
> > > >>>>> updating of version information in-between)
> > > >>>>>> * Less things that can go wrong (I remember when
> > > >>> compiler
> > > >>>> was
> > > >>>>> already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest wasn’t yet …
> there
> > were
> > > >>> issues
> > > >>>>> discussed on the list)
> > > >>>>>> * I would use the opportunity to clean up some
> things
> > > >>> in the
> > > >>>>> maven build, because despite the probably common
> > assumption …
> > > >>> I’m not
> > > >>>>> really happy with the usability of the maven build
> from a
> > > >>> user’s
> > > >>>>> perspective … I think there’s great room for
> improvement
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> In general I would propose to merge all 3
> repositories
> > > >>> into
> > > >>>> one.
> > > >>>>> Right now the Maven build would probably work with
> > different
> > > >>>> releases of
> > > >>>>> the compiler or typedefs but from what I can see …
> the Ant
> > > >>> release
> > > >>>> would
> > > >>>>> probably not work without modification. So the whole
> idea
> > of
> > > >>>> releasing
> > > >>>>> separately seems to be more a theoretical one. I
> think in
> > the
> > > >>>> history of
> > > >>>>> FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done once (please
> correct
> > me
> > > >>> if I’m
> > > >>>>> wrong). If there are external entities only
> interested in
> > > >>> consuming
> > > >>>> parts
> > > >>>>> of the project, we could build source distribution
> for
> > these
> > > >>> that
> > > >>>> only
> > > >>>>> contain the parts they are interest in.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> * I propose to move the artifacts needed for the
> > > >>> build but
> > > >>>> not
> > > >>>>> being part of the build (build-tools, jburg-types)
> into a
> > > >>> separate
> > > >>>>> repository where they can be released independently
> and
> > don’t
> > > >>> cause
> > > >>>>> confusion like they are doing right now.
> > > >>>>>> * Then I would like to create a new repository
> (Let’s
> > > >>> call
> > > >>>> it
> > > >>>>> “royale”) which contains 3 directories: compiler,
> typedefs
> > and
> > > >>> asjs
> > > >>>> (or
> > > >>>>> even with the current “royale-“ prefix, I don’t
> really
> > > >>> care/mind).
> > > >>>>>> * Now comes the biggest block … I would need to
> > > >>> completely
> > > >>>>> rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the core of it
> would be
> > also
> > > >>> moved
> > > >>>> to the
> > > >>>>> new build-tools repository. This plugin would sort
> of be an
> > > >>> empty
> > > >>>> skeleton
> > > >>>>> to load compiler plugins. This is needed as Maven
> can’t
> > build a
> > > >>>> project
> > > >>>>> where a plugin used in the project is also part of
> the
> > build
> > > >>> itself.
> > > >>>> So we
> > > >>>>> couldn’t build all-in-one go without this change.
> > > >>>>>> * Next step would be to add a new royale-parent
> pom
> > > >>> in the
> > > >>>> new
> > > >>>>> root of the project, the 3 old parents would be
> updated to
> > use
> > > >>> the
> > > >>>> new
> > > >>>>> parent and a lot of duplicated configuration could
> be moved
> > > >>> there,
> > > >>>> hereby
> > > >>>>> greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> A migration plan, could be to :
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> * create a feature-branch in all 3 repositories
> > > >>>>>> * create two new repos “royale” and
> > > >>> “royale-build-tools” (or
> > > >>>>> whatever you want to name them)
> > > >>>>>> * Start with using git submodules to import the 3
> > > >>> branches
> > > >>>> into
> > > >>>>> the new (I know submodules really suck, but they
> would
> > only be
> > > >>>> needed until
> > > >>>>> everything is finished)
> > > >>>>>> * I would move/copy the build tools to the new
> repo
> > > >>> and
> > > >>>> start
> > > >>>>> working on the new maven plugin
> > > >>>>>> * Then I would need to update the old compiler
> repo to
> > > >>>> produce
> > > >>>>> something I can use as royale-maven-plugin plugins
> > > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the typedefs to
> > > >>> use the
> > > >>>> new
> > > >>>>> plugin
> > > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the asjs repo
> to
> > > >>> use the
> > > >>>> new
> > > >>>>> plugin
> > > >>>>>> * Then I would add the new royale-parent pom
> > > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would simplify and
> deduplicate
> > > >>> the
> > > >>>>> configuration
> > > >>>>>> * Now I would definitely need some help with
> > > >>> adjusting the
> > > >>>> Ant
> > > >>>>> and possibly NPM build to these changes (Most of them
> > should be
> > > >>>>> profile-names and maybe directory names or paths)
> > > >>>>>> * The last thing that would be required to be
> done now
> > > >>>> would be
> > > >>>>> to remove the submodules in the “royale” repository
> and to
> > > >>> import
> > > >>>> the real
> > > >>>>> repos
> > > >>>>>> * After this the 3 old repos could be archived
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I am really looking forward to some open discussion
> on
> > > >>> this.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Chris
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> --
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Piotr Zarzycki
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > >>>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Piotr Zarzycki
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > >>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >>
> > > >> Piotr Zarzycki
> > > >>
> > > >> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > >> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Andrew Wetmore
> >
> > http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
> >
> >
>
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
Hi all,
so thankfully Carlos watched the full 1,5 hours of my release video and told me it was ok ... so I'll share them with you:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1BDKG-zPW3CoWLI0KQJDO5PGyEJQtKRb4
In video 1 (27 Minutes) I am releasing the "compiler "
In video 2 (10 Minutes) I am releasing the "typedefs"
In video 3 (50 Minutes) I am releasing the "asjs/framework"
Most additional steps are just related to the separation of the 3 repos ...
If we were to merge them and I would do my refactoring to the royale-maven-plugin, it would just be the steps of video 1.
I also added some background infos on what's happening in which step and why I'm doing things the way I am ... pehaps it makes the 1,5h a little more educational as if I just typed in the commands ... will prepare a text-document with all the steps ASAP.
Chris
Am 31.05.20, 09:29 schrieb "Yishay Weiss" <yi...@hotmail.com>:
Alex might want to confirm, but I’m pretty sure DST issue was fixed.
From: Greg Dove<ma...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2020 1:40 AM
To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Chris, Harbs & others,
Sorry I didn't reply earlier on this thread, I have been very focused on
some intense work tasks, consuming extra hours in each day for some time
now.
Unless I misunderstood something, I think we already had consensus on
top-level things like:
a) we need the royale sdk (as3 language support + application framework +
compiler + typedefs) to continue to be usable via ant, maven, npm and
possibly other future build tools
b) we need the distribution/artifacts to be validated for each of the
end-user supported build tools
c) we need the release process to be as simple and streamlined as possible,
while still keeping quality checks in place.
This is just my limited interpretation/synthesis of discussions to date, so
I hope it it makes sense. There were some expressions that certain things
had to be done a certain way at (c) in order to achieve (b).
If my expression above (representing my understanding) is correct, then I
really don't care what tech we use to achieve (c), so long as (a) and (b)
are achieved. I guess the only other thing I would add is that whatever we
use for (c) should be easy to understand and maintain, but perhaps that is
inherent in the 'simple and streamlined' part of what I expressed.
Chris,
Thanks for investing your time in this, and for your proposal. If my
understanding above is correct then I think your proposal covers that along
with the general improvements in maven configurations and support.
I'll try to find time to watch the video in the coming week.
One specific comment about: ' perhaps even help the automated testing in
the ASJS repo.'
At the moment there is a RoyaleUnit ant task that Josh created. If
RoyaleUnit could somehow be supported via maven that would be awesome. I
know you have other approaches as well for automated UI testing, but
RoyaleUnit permits re-use of legacy FlexUnit tests, so supporting that via
maven would be a major plus, I think.
Harbs,
Thanks for the suggestion that I participate as RM. I only understand the
current process in a very abstract sense, apart from the time I watched
Chris and Carlos going through the first 7 steps.
I agree that, in general, it's better to understand a process before
decisions relating to improvements are considered for that process, and I
know I do not really understand it well. But I don't think that needs to
include me, and would prefer not to be RM in the near term. I will be happy
to do this at some point, but I envisage my time being quite pre-occupied
with asjs (particularly emulation) work over the next couple of months, and
prefer to keep my limited neurons focused on that for now. Basically, I am
happy to defer to others here.
As an aside, one of the issues identified in recent weeks was the DST
alignment issue which seemed to require DST alignment between RM's local
machine and the CI server. Perhaps that is fixed now, I am not sure. If it
is not then, based on the original description of the cause of that
problem, it might preclude me being RM until it is fixed in any case,
because that misalignment would hold true most of the year for me (I would
consider it important to fix, but not urgent to fix because we have, I
believe, no others currently from the southern hemisphere who could be RM
right now anyway).
Greg
On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 4:02 AM Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today I just prepared my forks of royale again and did a full release of
> all 3 repos and did a video recording of that.
> I did find some minor quirks which I'll whip up a PR for (no profile name
> or directory changes).
>
> As soon as I am finished cutting the video and removed lots minutes of
> jewl-theme-compilation stuff I'll publish the link to the videos here.
>
> Chris
>
> Am 28.05.20, 18:03 schrieb "Andrew Wetmore" <co...@gmail.com>:
>
> Seems like the simplest way.
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:55 PM Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Infra says there's nothing in-between all or nothing with github :-(
> >
> > So I'll probably go down the google doc route and have the text
> imported
> > by one of you folks.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > Am 28.05.20, 17:38 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > I’m going offline for two days so I’ll be quiet for a while, but
> it
> > might be a good idea to ask infra whether they have a solution to
> this
> > problem.
> >
> > Harbs
> >
> > > On May 28, 2020, at 5:36 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > well perhaps searching for some experiences with this ...
> > > my gut-feeling would make me expect to have the wiki content
> > replaced by Viagra ads ;-)
> > >
> > > But it would be in git, so easily undoable ....
> > >
> > > I did find this however:
> > >
> >
> https://www.growingwiththeweb.com/2016/07/enabling-pull-requests-on-github-wikis.html
> > >
> > > It's less convenient way, but probably safer.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > > Am 28.05.20, 16:25 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > Hmm. That’s a problem I was not aware of...
> > >
> > > What do folks think about enabling public editing of
> wikis?[1]
> > >
> > > Harbs
> > >
> > > [1]
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> > <
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> > >
> > >
> > >> On May 28, 2020, at 5:00 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> so I just had a look ... it seems as if the "fork" feature on
> > github doesn't fork the wiki too ...
> > >> So I could create my own pages, but not create PRs for
> > documentation ... or I just didn't find the docs on how to do it.
> > >> Do you have any pointers for me?
> > >>
> > >> Chris
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Am 28.05.20, 13:55 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > >>
> > >> Chris,
> > >>
> > >> We are not using confluence at all. We are using Wiki [1],
> but
> > you can
> > >> write document in whatever place you wanted to if you are
> not
> > comfortable
> > >> with wiki.
> > >>
> > >> Andrew,
> > >>
> > >> Will you be willing to translate that document into our Wiki
> > manner ?
> > >>
> > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Piotr
> > >>
> > >> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:43 Christofer Dutz <
> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > >> napisał(a):
> > >>
> > >>> Hi Piotr,
> > >>>
> > >>> I think the Royale project could grant my user write
> permissions to
> > >>> confluence.
> > >>> Then I could write such a document there.
> > >>>
> > >>> But I could also do a google doc outside, if this is more
> > convenient.
> > >>>
> > >>> Chris
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Am 28.05.20, 13:39 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > >>>
> > >>> Chris,
> > >>>
> > >>> I think I would like to be after Harbs and eventually
> Greg. Yes
> > you can
> > >>> send me a link, write a document with absolutely EVERY step
> > which I
> > >>> have to
> > >>> do in order to get release done. Even if you think that I
> know
> > some
> > >>> steps
> > >>> like signing - you can in such places point into some
> existing
> > >>> document.
> > >>>
> > >>> I would like to be able to comment on every step to
> confront if I
> > >>> really
> > >>> for example had to copy/paste some command or just
> opposite I
> > had to do
> > >>> much more than only copy/paste.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Piotr
> > >>>
> > >>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:27 Christofer Dutz <
> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > >>> napisał(a):
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hi Piotr,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> we could change the configuration to use the jgit plugin on
> the CI
> > >>> machine
> > >>>> and to use the default on local machines.
> > >>>> In that case you could do it on any machine you want (also
> > windows)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Who does releases in which order using which tooling ... I
> don't
> > >>> really
> > >>>> care ...
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'm just happy that there's a line building up of people
> wanting
> > to
> > >>> do so
> > >>>> and I get to use fresh releases :-)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If there is anything I can help with ... just ping me and
> I'll be
> > >>> happy to
> > >>>> help.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Chris
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Am 28.05.20, 13:18 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > >>> piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi Harbs,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I would like to be a release manager as well, but using
> Chri's
> > >>>> implementation which as far as I know is in place. I
> would like
> > >>> to use
> > >>>> his
> > >>>> mentioned 3 steps and see how much things I will have to
> do on
> > >>> my own
> > >>>> to
> > >>>> make release happen. I know that I will have to do that
> on Mac,
> > >>> cause
> > >>>> there
> > >>>> some Maven/Git/Jenkins related plugin which allows use
> Jenkins,
> > >>> but it
> > >>>> prevents me from pushing artifacts from windows.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I have some thoughts about above proposition, but I will
> wait
> > >>> till we
> > >>>> all
> > >>>> pass trough the release process.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> Piotr
> > >>>>
> > >>>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 11:06 Christofer Dutz <
> > >>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > >>>> napisał(a):
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Hi Harbs,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> makes sense.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Chris
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" <harbs.lists@gmail.com
> >:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Hi Chris,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks for you work helping with the 0.9.7 release as
> well.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I’m definitely open to improving the structure and the
> > >>> process.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> My biggest hesitation is that I don’t understand the
> > >>> current
> > >>>> release
> > >>>>> process well enough. Until recently Alex was the only one
> who
> > >>> really
> > >>>>> understood it. Yishay just went through the process so he
> has
> > >>> a good
> > >>>>> understanding now. I plan on doing another release the week
> > >>>> following next
> > >>>>> (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope is that I will
> > >>> understand it
> > >>>> better
> > >>>>> at that point. I don’t know whether Greg Dove is willing
> to do
> > >>> a
> > >>>> release,
> > >>>>> but I think it would be very valuable to get his input as
> well.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> So my proposal is that we get some more of us familiar
> > >>> with the
> > >>>> what
> > >>>>> and the why of the current process. I want to understand
> what
> > >>> was
> > >>>> done and
> > >>>>> why it was done. I don’t feel comfortable having an
> opinion on
> > >>>> changing
> > >>>>> things until I can weigh the pros and cons. I’d like more
> of
> > >>> us to
> > >>>> be in
> > >>>>> the same position so we will be in the position of building
> > >>>> consensus on
> > >>>>> changes. The reason I hope that Greg Dove specifically
> does a
> > >>>> release is
> > >>>>> because I feel he’s pretty neutral on technology and I
> think
> > >>> he’ll
> > >>>> have
> > >>>>> good valuable input.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> So here’s my proposal:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3 releases in rapid
> > >>> succession
> > >>>>> without making too many changes.
> > >>>>> 2. Let’s try and get as many of us familiar with that
> > >>> process as
> > >>>>> possible.
> > >>>>> 3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss the pain points and
> > >>> what can
> > >>>> be
> > >>>>> done to improve the structure and/or the process with pros
> and
> > >>> cons.
> > >>>> Maybe
> > >>>>> your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe something else?
> > >>> Similar?
> > >>>> Don’t
> > >>>>> know, but I’d like to get to the point where we can have an
> > >>>> intelligent
> > >>>>> discussion on the topic with different points of view. I
> don’t
> > >>> think
> > >>>> we’re
> > >>>>> quite there yet.
> > >>>>> 4. Carefully start implementing changes. Making big
> > >>> changes is
> > >>>> often
> > >>>>> disruptive and is often the cause of conflict. This is
> nothing
> > >>>> specific to
> > >>>>> us, and there’s even accepted advice on the topic. I
> suggest
> > >>> we all
> > >>>> read
> > >>>>> and follow James Duncan Davidson's “rules for
> > >>> revolutionaries”[1].
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I appreciate having your proposed changes to ponder the
> > >>> next
> > >>>> couple of
> > >>>>> weeks.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> In the meantime, please by all means, dive into Royale
> and
> > >>> create
> > >>>>> issues, pull requests, let us know difficulties, etc. I’ll
> > >>> make my
> > >>>> best
> > >>>>> effort to be as responsive as possible and help where I
> can. If
> > >>>> you’re
> > >>>>> feeling frustration, please reach out to me on Slack.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Does this make sense?
> > >>>>> Harbs
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> [1]http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries <
> > >>>>> http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Christofer Dutz <
> > >>>>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> congrats to the successful release of 0.9.7 … it greatly
> > >>>> simplified
> > >>>>> the last PLC4X release to have the artifacts out there in
> the
> > >>> wild.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I would really like to see Royale as the tool in my
> > >>> toolbox for
> > >>>>> building industrial UI applications as I sort of am not
> that
> > >>> happy
> > >>>> with the
> > >>>>> other existing alternatives.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> In order to do this I know that I have some areas of
> > >>> expertise
> > >>>> I can
> > >>>>> offer to the project … Writing ActionScript and MXML code
> is
> > >>>> definitely not
> > >>>>> where I can help best.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> However I’m really good at Java, Maven and Apache
> > >>>> Infrastructure. I
> > >>>>> know that development is most active in the ASJS repo but I
> > >>> would be
> > >>>> happy
> > >>>>> to help on the other sides ... perhaps even help the
> automated
> > >>>> testing in
> > >>>>> the ASJS repo.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I would have one proposal on how to really simplify
> > >>> things,
> > >>>> but I
> > >>>>> would be hesitant to start working on this before we have
> > >>> consensus
> > >>>> on this
> > >>>>> here.
> > >>>>>> It would probably involve multiple weeks of full time
> > >>> work in
> > >>>> total
> > >>>>> to do it for me, but I would be happy to do it, if the
> project
> > >>> would
> > >>>> accept
> > >>>>> it in the end and you folks would be willing to help with
> the
> > >>> parts
> > >>>> I’m not
> > >>>>> too deep into (Ant-, NPM build adjustments). So that’s why
> I’m
> > >>>> bringing
> > >>>>> this up here first. I know it might question some unwritten
> > >>> project
> > >>>> rules,
> > >>>>> but I would kindly ask you to not just block the
> discussion and
> > >>>> perhaps
> > >>>>> help re-evaluating why they became “project rules” and if
> the
> > >>>> assumptions
> > >>>>> were correct or still apply.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The benefit would be:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> * Less problems in getting set-up (just clone one
> > >>> repo)
> > >>>>>> * Simpler release (Only need to release one
> > >>> repository … no
> > >>>>> updating of version information in-between)
> > >>>>>> * Less things that can go wrong (I remember when
> > >>> compiler
> > >>>> was
> > >>>>> already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest wasn’t yet … there
> were
> > >>> issues
> > >>>>> discussed on the list)
> > >>>>>> * I would use the opportunity to clean up some things
> > >>> in the
> > >>>>> maven build, because despite the probably common
> assumption …
> > >>> I’m not
> > >>>>> really happy with the usability of the maven build from a
> > >>> user’s
> > >>>>> perspective … I think there’s great room for improvement
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> In general I would propose to merge all 3 repositories
> > >>> into
> > >>>> one.
> > >>>>> Right now the Maven build would probably work with
> different
> > >>>> releases of
> > >>>>> the compiler or typedefs but from what I can see … the Ant
> > >>> release
> > >>>> would
> > >>>>> probably not work without modification. So the whole idea
> of
> > >>>> releasing
> > >>>>> separately seems to be more a theoretical one. I think in
> the
> > >>>> history of
> > >>>>> FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done once (please correct
> me
> > >>> if I’m
> > >>>>> wrong). If there are external entities only interested in
> > >>> consuming
> > >>>> parts
> > >>>>> of the project, we could build source distribution for
> these
> > >>> that
> > >>>> only
> > >>>>> contain the parts they are interest in.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> * I propose to move the artifacts needed for the
> > >>> build but
> > >>>> not
> > >>>>> being part of the build (build-tools, jburg-types) into a
> > >>> separate
> > >>>>> repository where they can be released independently and
> don’t
> > >>> cause
> > >>>>> confusion like they are doing right now.
> > >>>>>> * Then I would like to create a new repository (Let’s
> > >>> call
> > >>>> it
> > >>>>> “royale”) which contains 3 directories: compiler, typedefs
> and
> > >>> asjs
> > >>>> (or
> > >>>>> even with the current “royale-“ prefix, I don’t really
> > >>> care/mind).
> > >>>>>> * Now comes the biggest block … I would need to
> > >>> completely
> > >>>>> rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the core of it would be
> also
> > >>> moved
> > >>>> to the
> > >>>>> new build-tools repository. This plugin would sort of be an
> > >>> empty
> > >>>> skeleton
> > >>>>> to load compiler plugins. This is needed as Maven can’t
> build a
> > >>>> project
> > >>>>> where a plugin used in the project is also part of the
> build
> > >>> itself.
> > >>>> So we
> > >>>>> couldn’t build all-in-one go without this change.
> > >>>>>> * Next step would be to add a new royale-parent pom
> > >>> in the
> > >>>> new
> > >>>>> root of the project, the 3 old parents would be updated to
> use
> > >>> the
> > >>>> new
> > >>>>> parent and a lot of duplicated configuration could be moved
> > >>> there,
> > >>>> hereby
> > >>>>> greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> A migration plan, could be to :
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> * create a feature-branch in all 3 repositories
> > >>>>>> * create two new repos “royale” and
> > >>> “royale-build-tools” (or
> > >>>>> whatever you want to name them)
> > >>>>>> * Start with using git submodules to import the 3
> > >>> branches
> > >>>> into
> > >>>>> the new (I know submodules really suck, but they would
> only be
> > >>>> needed until
> > >>>>> everything is finished)
> > >>>>>> * I would move/copy the build tools to the new repo
> > >>> and
> > >>>> start
> > >>>>> working on the new maven plugin
> > >>>>>> * Then I would need to update the old compiler repo to
> > >>>> produce
> > >>>>> something I can use as royale-maven-plugin plugins
> > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the typedefs to
> > >>> use the
> > >>>> new
> > >>>>> plugin
> > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the asjs repo to
> > >>> use the
> > >>>> new
> > >>>>> plugin
> > >>>>>> * Then I would add the new royale-parent pom
> > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would simplify and deduplicate
> > >>> the
> > >>>>> configuration
> > >>>>>> * Now I would definitely need some help with
> > >>> adjusting the
> > >>>> Ant
> > >>>>> and possibly NPM build to these changes (Most of them
> should be
> > >>>>> profile-names and maybe directory names or paths)
> > >>>>>> * The last thing that would be required to be done now
> > >>>> would be
> > >>>>> to remove the submodules in the “royale” repository and to
> > >>> import
> > >>>> the real
> > >>>>> repos
> > >>>>>> * After this the 3 old repos could be archived
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I am really looking forward to some open discussion on
> > >>> this.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Chris
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Piotr Zarzycki
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > >>>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>>
> > >>> Piotr Zarzycki
> > >>>
> > >>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > >>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> Piotr Zarzycki
> > >>
> > >> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > >> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Andrew Wetmore
>
> http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
>
>
RE: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Posted by Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com>.
Alex might want to confirm, but I’m pretty sure DST issue was fixed.
From: Greg Dove<ma...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2020 1:40 AM
To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Chris, Harbs & others,
Sorry I didn't reply earlier on this thread, I have been very focused on
some intense work tasks, consuming extra hours in each day for some time
now.
Unless I misunderstood something, I think we already had consensus on
top-level things like:
a) we need the royale sdk (as3 language support + application framework +
compiler + typedefs) to continue to be usable via ant, maven, npm and
possibly other future build tools
b) we need the distribution/artifacts to be validated for each of the
end-user supported build tools
c) we need the release process to be as simple and streamlined as possible,
while still keeping quality checks in place.
This is just my limited interpretation/synthesis of discussions to date, so
I hope it it makes sense. There were some expressions that certain things
had to be done a certain way at (c) in order to achieve (b).
If my expression above (representing my understanding) is correct, then I
really don't care what tech we use to achieve (c), so long as (a) and (b)
are achieved. I guess the only other thing I would add is that whatever we
use for (c) should be easy to understand and maintain, but perhaps that is
inherent in the 'simple and streamlined' part of what I expressed.
Chris,
Thanks for investing your time in this, and for your proposal. If my
understanding above is correct then I think your proposal covers that along
with the general improvements in maven configurations and support.
I'll try to find time to watch the video in the coming week.
One specific comment about: ' perhaps even help the automated testing in
the ASJS repo.'
At the moment there is a RoyaleUnit ant task that Josh created. If
RoyaleUnit could somehow be supported via maven that would be awesome. I
know you have other approaches as well for automated UI testing, but
RoyaleUnit permits re-use of legacy FlexUnit tests, so supporting that via
maven would be a major plus, I think.
Harbs,
Thanks for the suggestion that I participate as RM. I only understand the
current process in a very abstract sense, apart from the time I watched
Chris and Carlos going through the first 7 steps.
I agree that, in general, it's better to understand a process before
decisions relating to improvements are considered for that process, and I
know I do not really understand it well. But I don't think that needs to
include me, and would prefer not to be RM in the near term. I will be happy
to do this at some point, but I envisage my time being quite pre-occupied
with asjs (particularly emulation) work over the next couple of months, and
prefer to keep my limited neurons focused on that for now. Basically, I am
happy to defer to others here.
As an aside, one of the issues identified in recent weeks was the DST
alignment issue which seemed to require DST alignment between RM's local
machine and the CI server. Perhaps that is fixed now, I am not sure. If it
is not then, based on the original description of the cause of that
problem, it might preclude me being RM until it is fixed in any case,
because that misalignment would hold true most of the year for me (I would
consider it important to fix, but not urgent to fix because we have, I
believe, no others currently from the southern hemisphere who could be RM
right now anyway).
Greg
On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 4:02 AM Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today I just prepared my forks of royale again and did a full release of
> all 3 repos and did a video recording of that.
> I did find some minor quirks which I'll whip up a PR for (no profile name
> or directory changes).
>
> As soon as I am finished cutting the video and removed lots minutes of
> jewl-theme-compilation stuff I'll publish the link to the videos here.
>
> Chris
>
> Am 28.05.20, 18:03 schrieb "Andrew Wetmore" <co...@gmail.com>:
>
> Seems like the simplest way.
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:55 PM Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Infra says there's nothing in-between all or nothing with github :-(
> >
> > So I'll probably go down the google doc route and have the text
> imported
> > by one of you folks.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > Am 28.05.20, 17:38 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > I’m going offline for two days so I’ll be quiet for a while, but
> it
> > might be a good idea to ask infra whether they have a solution to
> this
> > problem.
> >
> > Harbs
> >
> > > On May 28, 2020, at 5:36 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > well perhaps searching for some experiences with this ...
> > > my gut-feeling would make me expect to have the wiki content
> > replaced by Viagra ads ;-)
> > >
> > > But it would be in git, so easily undoable ....
> > >
> > > I did find this however:
> > >
> >
> https://www.growingwiththeweb.com/2016/07/enabling-pull-requests-on-github-wikis.html
> > >
> > > It's less convenient way, but probably safer.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > > Am 28.05.20, 16:25 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > Hmm. That’s a problem I was not aware of...
> > >
> > > What do folks think about enabling public editing of
> wikis?[1]
> > >
> > > Harbs
> > >
> > > [1]
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> > <
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> > >
> > >
> > >> On May 28, 2020, at 5:00 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> so I just had a look ... it seems as if the "fork" feature on
> > github doesn't fork the wiki too ...
> > >> So I could create my own pages, but not create PRs for
> > documentation ... or I just didn't find the docs on how to do it.
> > >> Do you have any pointers for me?
> > >>
> > >> Chris
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Am 28.05.20, 13:55 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > >>
> > >> Chris,
> > >>
> > >> We are not using confluence at all. We are using Wiki [1],
> but
> > you can
> > >> write document in whatever place you wanted to if you are
> not
> > comfortable
> > >> with wiki.
> > >>
> > >> Andrew,
> > >>
> > >> Will you be willing to translate that document into our Wiki
> > manner ?
> > >>
> > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Piotr
> > >>
> > >> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:43 Christofer Dutz <
> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > >> napisał(a):
> > >>
> > >>> Hi Piotr,
> > >>>
> > >>> I think the Royale project could grant my user write
> permissions to
> > >>> confluence.
> > >>> Then I could write such a document there.
> > >>>
> > >>> But I could also do a google doc outside, if this is more
> > convenient.
> > >>>
> > >>> Chris
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Am 28.05.20, 13:39 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > >>>
> > >>> Chris,
> > >>>
> > >>> I think I would like to be after Harbs and eventually
> Greg. Yes
> > you can
> > >>> send me a link, write a document with absolutely EVERY step
> > which I
> > >>> have to
> > >>> do in order to get release done. Even if you think that I
> know
> > some
> > >>> steps
> > >>> like signing - you can in such places point into some
> existing
> > >>> document.
> > >>>
> > >>> I would like to be able to comment on every step to
> confront if I
> > >>> really
> > >>> for example had to copy/paste some command or just
> opposite I
> > had to do
> > >>> much more than only copy/paste.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Piotr
> > >>>
> > >>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:27 Christofer Dutz <
> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > >>> napisał(a):
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hi Piotr,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> we could change the configuration to use the jgit plugin on
> the CI
> > >>> machine
> > >>>> and to use the default on local machines.
> > >>>> In that case you could do it on any machine you want (also
> > windows)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Who does releases in which order using which tooling ... I
> don't
> > >>> really
> > >>>> care ...
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'm just happy that there's a line building up of people
> wanting
> > to
> > >>> do so
> > >>>> and I get to use fresh releases :-)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If there is anything I can help with ... just ping me and
> I'll be
> > >>> happy to
> > >>>> help.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Chris
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Am 28.05.20, 13:18 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > >>> piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi Harbs,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I would like to be a release manager as well, but using
> Chri's
> > >>>> implementation which as far as I know is in place. I
> would like
> > >>> to use
> > >>>> his
> > >>>> mentioned 3 steps and see how much things I will have to
> do on
> > >>> my own
> > >>>> to
> > >>>> make release happen. I know that I will have to do that
> on Mac,
> > >>> cause
> > >>>> there
> > >>>> some Maven/Git/Jenkins related plugin which allows use
> Jenkins,
> > >>> but it
> > >>>> prevents me from pushing artifacts from windows.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I have some thoughts about above proposition, but I will
> wait
> > >>> till we
> > >>>> all
> > >>>> pass trough the release process.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> Piotr
> > >>>>
> > >>>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 11:06 Christofer Dutz <
> > >>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > >>>> napisał(a):
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Hi Harbs,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> makes sense.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Chris
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" <harbs.lists@gmail.com
> >:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Hi Chris,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks for you work helping with the 0.9.7 release as
> well.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I’m definitely open to improving the structure and the
> > >>> process.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> My biggest hesitation is that I don’t understand the
> > >>> current
> > >>>> release
> > >>>>> process well enough. Until recently Alex was the only one
> who
> > >>> really
> > >>>>> understood it. Yishay just went through the process so he
> has
> > >>> a good
> > >>>>> understanding now. I plan on doing another release the week
> > >>>> following next
> > >>>>> (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope is that I will
> > >>> understand it
> > >>>> better
> > >>>>> at that point. I don’t know whether Greg Dove is willing
> to do
> > >>> a
> > >>>> release,
> > >>>>> but I think it would be very valuable to get his input as
> well.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> So my proposal is that we get some more of us familiar
> > >>> with the
> > >>>> what
> > >>>>> and the why of the current process. I want to understand
> what
> > >>> was
> > >>>> done and
> > >>>>> why it was done. I don’t feel comfortable having an
> opinion on
> > >>>> changing
> > >>>>> things until I can weigh the pros and cons. I’d like more
> of
> > >>> us to
> > >>>> be in
> > >>>>> the same position so we will be in the position of building
> > >>>> consensus on
> > >>>>> changes. The reason I hope that Greg Dove specifically
> does a
> > >>>> release is
> > >>>>> because I feel he’s pretty neutral on technology and I
> think
> > >>> he’ll
> > >>>> have
> > >>>>> good valuable input.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> So here’s my proposal:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3 releases in rapid
> > >>> succession
> > >>>>> without making too many changes.
> > >>>>> 2. Let’s try and get as many of us familiar with that
> > >>> process as
> > >>>>> possible.
> > >>>>> 3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss the pain points and
> > >>> what can
> > >>>> be
> > >>>>> done to improve the structure and/or the process with pros
> and
> > >>> cons.
> > >>>> Maybe
> > >>>>> your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe something else?
> > >>> Similar?
> > >>>> Don’t
> > >>>>> know, but I’d like to get to the point where we can have an
> > >>>> intelligent
> > >>>>> discussion on the topic with different points of view. I
> don’t
> > >>> think
> > >>>> we’re
> > >>>>> quite there yet.
> > >>>>> 4. Carefully start implementing changes. Making big
> > >>> changes is
> > >>>> often
> > >>>>> disruptive and is often the cause of conflict. This is
> nothing
> > >>>> specific to
> > >>>>> us, and there’s even accepted advice on the topic. I
> suggest
> > >>> we all
> > >>>> read
> > >>>>> and follow James Duncan Davidson's “rules for
> > >>> revolutionaries”[1].
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I appreciate having your proposed changes to ponder the
> > >>> next
> > >>>> couple of
> > >>>>> weeks.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> In the meantime, please by all means, dive into Royale
> and
> > >>> create
> > >>>>> issues, pull requests, let us know difficulties, etc. I’ll
> > >>> make my
> > >>>> best
> > >>>>> effort to be as responsive as possible and help where I
> can. If
> > >>>> you’re
> > >>>>> feeling frustration, please reach out to me on Slack.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Does this make sense?
> > >>>>> Harbs
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> [1]http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries <
> > >>>>> http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Christofer Dutz <
> > >>>>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> congrats to the successful release of 0.9.7 … it greatly
> > >>>> simplified
> > >>>>> the last PLC4X release to have the artifacts out there in
> the
> > >>> wild.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I would really like to see Royale as the tool in my
> > >>> toolbox for
> > >>>>> building industrial UI applications as I sort of am not
> that
> > >>> happy
> > >>>> with the
> > >>>>> other existing alternatives.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> In order to do this I know that I have some areas of
> > >>> expertise
> > >>>> I can
> > >>>>> offer to the project … Writing ActionScript and MXML code
> is
> > >>>> definitely not
> > >>>>> where I can help best.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> However I’m really good at Java, Maven and Apache
> > >>>> Infrastructure. I
> > >>>>> know that development is most active in the ASJS repo but I
> > >>> would be
> > >>>> happy
> > >>>>> to help on the other sides ... perhaps even help the
> automated
> > >>>> testing in
> > >>>>> the ASJS repo.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I would have one proposal on how to really simplify
> > >>> things,
> > >>>> but I
> > >>>>> would be hesitant to start working on this before we have
> > >>> consensus
> > >>>> on this
> > >>>>> here.
> > >>>>>> It would probably involve multiple weeks of full time
> > >>> work in
> > >>>> total
> > >>>>> to do it for me, but I would be happy to do it, if the
> project
> > >>> would
> > >>>> accept
> > >>>>> it in the end and you folks would be willing to help with
> the
> > >>> parts
> > >>>> I’m not
> > >>>>> too deep into (Ant-, NPM build adjustments). So that’s why
> I’m
> > >>>> bringing
> > >>>>> this up here first. I know it might question some unwritten
> > >>> project
> > >>>> rules,
> > >>>>> but I would kindly ask you to not just block the
> discussion and
> > >>>> perhaps
> > >>>>> help re-evaluating why they became “project rules” and if
> the
> > >>>> assumptions
> > >>>>> were correct or still apply.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The benefit would be:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> * Less problems in getting set-up (just clone one
> > >>> repo)
> > >>>>>> * Simpler release (Only need to release one
> > >>> repository … no
> > >>>>> updating of version information in-between)
> > >>>>>> * Less things that can go wrong (I remember when
> > >>> compiler
> > >>>> was
> > >>>>> already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest wasn’t yet … there
> were
> > >>> issues
> > >>>>> discussed on the list)
> > >>>>>> * I would use the opportunity to clean up some things
> > >>> in the
> > >>>>> maven build, because despite the probably common
> assumption …
> > >>> I’m not
> > >>>>> really happy with the usability of the maven build from a
> > >>> user’s
> > >>>>> perspective … I think there’s great room for improvement
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> In general I would propose to merge all 3 repositories
> > >>> into
> > >>>> one.
> > >>>>> Right now the Maven build would probably work with
> different
> > >>>> releases of
> > >>>>> the compiler or typedefs but from what I can see … the Ant
> > >>> release
> > >>>> would
> > >>>>> probably not work without modification. So the whole idea
> of
> > >>>> releasing
> > >>>>> separately seems to be more a theoretical one. I think in
> the
> > >>>> history of
> > >>>>> FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done once (please correct
> me
> > >>> if I’m
> > >>>>> wrong). If there are external entities only interested in
> > >>> consuming
> > >>>> parts
> > >>>>> of the project, we could build source distribution for
> these
> > >>> that
> > >>>> only
> > >>>>> contain the parts they are interest in.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> * I propose to move the artifacts needed for the
> > >>> build but
> > >>>> not
> > >>>>> being part of the build (build-tools, jburg-types) into a
> > >>> separate
> > >>>>> repository where they can be released independently and
> don’t
> > >>> cause
> > >>>>> confusion like they are doing right now.
> > >>>>>> * Then I would like to create a new repository (Let’s
> > >>> call
> > >>>> it
> > >>>>> “royale”) which contains 3 directories: compiler, typedefs
> and
> > >>> asjs
> > >>>> (or
> > >>>>> even with the current “royale-“ prefix, I don’t really
> > >>> care/mind).
> > >>>>>> * Now comes the biggest block … I would need to
> > >>> completely
> > >>>>> rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the core of it would be
> also
> > >>> moved
> > >>>> to the
> > >>>>> new build-tools repository. This plugin would sort of be an
> > >>> empty
> > >>>> skeleton
> > >>>>> to load compiler plugins. This is needed as Maven can’t
> build a
> > >>>> project
> > >>>>> where a plugin used in the project is also part of the
> build
> > >>> itself.
> > >>>> So we
> > >>>>> couldn’t build all-in-one go without this change.
> > >>>>>> * Next step would be to add a new royale-parent pom
> > >>> in the
> > >>>> new
> > >>>>> root of the project, the 3 old parents would be updated to
> use
> > >>> the
> > >>>> new
> > >>>>> parent and a lot of duplicated configuration could be moved
> > >>> there,
> > >>>> hereby
> > >>>>> greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> A migration plan, could be to :
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> * create a feature-branch in all 3 repositories
> > >>>>>> * create two new repos “royale” and
> > >>> “royale-build-tools” (or
> > >>>>> whatever you want to name them)
> > >>>>>> * Start with using git submodules to import the 3
> > >>> branches
> > >>>> into
> > >>>>> the new (I know submodules really suck, but they would
> only be
> > >>>> needed until
> > >>>>> everything is finished)
> > >>>>>> * I would move/copy the build tools to the new repo
> > >>> and
> > >>>> start
> > >>>>> working on the new maven plugin
> > >>>>>> * Then I would need to update the old compiler repo to
> > >>>> produce
> > >>>>> something I can use as royale-maven-plugin plugins
> > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the typedefs to
> > >>> use the
> > >>>> new
> > >>>>> plugin
> > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the asjs repo to
> > >>> use the
> > >>>> new
> > >>>>> plugin
> > >>>>>> * Then I would add the new royale-parent pom
> > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would simplify and deduplicate
> > >>> the
> > >>>>> configuration
> > >>>>>> * Now I would definitely need some help with
> > >>> adjusting the
> > >>>> Ant
> > >>>>> and possibly NPM build to these changes (Most of them
> should be
> > >>>>> profile-names and maybe directory names or paths)
> > >>>>>> * The last thing that would be required to be done now
> > >>>> would be
> > >>>>> to remove the submodules in the “royale” repository and to
> > >>> import
> > >>>> the real
> > >>>>> repos
> > >>>>>> * After this the 3 old repos could be archived
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I am really looking forward to some open discussion on
> > >>> this.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Chris
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Piotr Zarzycki
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > >>>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>>
> > >>> Piotr Zarzycki
> > >>>
> > >>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > >>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> Piotr Zarzycki
> > >>
> > >> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > >> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Andrew Wetmore
>
> http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Posted by Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com>.
Chris, Harbs & others,
Sorry I didn't reply earlier on this thread, I have been very focused on
some intense work tasks, consuming extra hours in each day for some time
now.
Unless I misunderstood something, I think we already had consensus on
top-level things like:
a) we need the royale sdk (as3 language support + application framework +
compiler + typedefs) to continue to be usable via ant, maven, npm and
possibly other future build tools
b) we need the distribution/artifacts to be validated for each of the
end-user supported build tools
c) we need the release process to be as simple and streamlined as possible,
while still keeping quality checks in place.
This is just my limited interpretation/synthesis of discussions to date, so
I hope it it makes sense. There were some expressions that certain things
had to be done a certain way at (c) in order to achieve (b).
If my expression above (representing my understanding) is correct, then I
really don't care what tech we use to achieve (c), so long as (a) and (b)
are achieved. I guess the only other thing I would add is that whatever we
use for (c) should be easy to understand and maintain, but perhaps that is
inherent in the 'simple and streamlined' part of what I expressed.
Chris,
Thanks for investing your time in this, and for your proposal. If my
understanding above is correct then I think your proposal covers that along
with the general improvements in maven configurations and support.
I'll try to find time to watch the video in the coming week.
One specific comment about: ' perhaps even help the automated testing in
the ASJS repo.'
At the moment there is a RoyaleUnit ant task that Josh created. If
RoyaleUnit could somehow be supported via maven that would be awesome. I
know you have other approaches as well for automated UI testing, but
RoyaleUnit permits re-use of legacy FlexUnit tests, so supporting that via
maven would be a major plus, I think.
Harbs,
Thanks for the suggestion that I participate as RM. I only understand the
current process in a very abstract sense, apart from the time I watched
Chris and Carlos going through the first 7 steps.
I agree that, in general, it's better to understand a process before
decisions relating to improvements are considered for that process, and I
know I do not really understand it well. But I don't think that needs to
include me, and would prefer not to be RM in the near term. I will be happy
to do this at some point, but I envisage my time being quite pre-occupied
with asjs (particularly emulation) work over the next couple of months, and
prefer to keep my limited neurons focused on that for now. Basically, I am
happy to defer to others here.
As an aside, one of the issues identified in recent weeks was the DST
alignment issue which seemed to require DST alignment between RM's local
machine and the CI server. Perhaps that is fixed now, I am not sure. If it
is not then, based on the original description of the cause of that
problem, it might preclude me being RM until it is fixed in any case,
because that misalignment would hold true most of the year for me (I would
consider it important to fix, but not urgent to fix because we have, I
believe, no others currently from the southern hemisphere who could be RM
right now anyway).
Greg
On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 4:02 AM Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today I just prepared my forks of royale again and did a full release of
> all 3 repos and did a video recording of that.
> I did find some minor quirks which I'll whip up a PR for (no profile name
> or directory changes).
>
> As soon as I am finished cutting the video and removed lots minutes of
> jewl-theme-compilation stuff I'll publish the link to the videos here.
>
> Chris
>
> Am 28.05.20, 18:03 schrieb "Andrew Wetmore" <co...@gmail.com>:
>
> Seems like the simplest way.
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:55 PM Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Infra says there's nothing in-between all or nothing with github :-(
> >
> > So I'll probably go down the google doc route and have the text
> imported
> > by one of you folks.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > Am 28.05.20, 17:38 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > I’m going offline for two days so I’ll be quiet for a while, but
> it
> > might be a good idea to ask infra whether they have a solution to
> this
> > problem.
> >
> > Harbs
> >
> > > On May 28, 2020, at 5:36 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > well perhaps searching for some experiences with this ...
> > > my gut-feeling would make me expect to have the wiki content
> > replaced by Viagra ads ;-)
> > >
> > > But it would be in git, so easily undoable ....
> > >
> > > I did find this however:
> > >
> >
> https://www.growingwiththeweb.com/2016/07/enabling-pull-requests-on-github-wikis.html
> > >
> > > It's less convenient way, but probably safer.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > > Am 28.05.20, 16:25 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > Hmm. That’s a problem I was not aware of...
> > >
> > > What do folks think about enabling public editing of
> wikis?[1]
> > >
> > > Harbs
> > >
> > > [1]
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> > <
> >
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> > >
> > >
> > >> On May 28, 2020, at 5:00 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> so I just had a look ... it seems as if the "fork" feature on
> > github doesn't fork the wiki too ...
> > >> So I could create my own pages, but not create PRs for
> > documentation ... or I just didn't find the docs on how to do it.
> > >> Do you have any pointers for me?
> > >>
> > >> Chris
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Am 28.05.20, 13:55 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > >>
> > >> Chris,
> > >>
> > >> We are not using confluence at all. We are using Wiki [1],
> but
> > you can
> > >> write document in whatever place you wanted to if you are
> not
> > comfortable
> > >> with wiki.
> > >>
> > >> Andrew,
> > >>
> > >> Will you be willing to translate that document into our Wiki
> > manner ?
> > >>
> > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Piotr
> > >>
> > >> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:43 Christofer Dutz <
> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > >> napisał(a):
> > >>
> > >>> Hi Piotr,
> > >>>
> > >>> I think the Royale project could grant my user write
> permissions to
> > >>> confluence.
> > >>> Then I could write such a document there.
> > >>>
> > >>> But I could also do a google doc outside, if this is more
> > convenient.
> > >>>
> > >>> Chris
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Am 28.05.20, 13:39 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > >>>
> > >>> Chris,
> > >>>
> > >>> I think I would like to be after Harbs and eventually
> Greg. Yes
> > you can
> > >>> send me a link, write a document with absolutely EVERY step
> > which I
> > >>> have to
> > >>> do in order to get release done. Even if you think that I
> know
> > some
> > >>> steps
> > >>> like signing - you can in such places point into some
> existing
> > >>> document.
> > >>>
> > >>> I would like to be able to comment on every step to
> confront if I
> > >>> really
> > >>> for example had to copy/paste some command or just
> opposite I
> > had to do
> > >>> much more than only copy/paste.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Piotr
> > >>>
> > >>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:27 Christofer Dutz <
> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > >>> napisał(a):
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hi Piotr,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> we could change the configuration to use the jgit plugin on
> the CI
> > >>> machine
> > >>>> and to use the default on local machines.
> > >>>> In that case you could do it on any machine you want (also
> > windows)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Who does releases in which order using which tooling ... I
> don't
> > >>> really
> > >>>> care ...
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'm just happy that there's a line building up of people
> wanting
> > to
> > >>> do so
> > >>>> and I get to use fresh releases :-)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If there is anything I can help with ... just ping me and
> I'll be
> > >>> happy to
> > >>>> help.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Chris
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Am 28.05.20, 13:18 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > >>> piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi Harbs,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I would like to be a release manager as well, but using
> Chri's
> > >>>> implementation which as far as I know is in place. I
> would like
> > >>> to use
> > >>>> his
> > >>>> mentioned 3 steps and see how much things I will have to
> do on
> > >>> my own
> > >>>> to
> > >>>> make release happen. I know that I will have to do that
> on Mac,
> > >>> cause
> > >>>> there
> > >>>> some Maven/Git/Jenkins related plugin which allows use
> Jenkins,
> > >>> but it
> > >>>> prevents me from pushing artifacts from windows.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I have some thoughts about above proposition, but I will
> wait
> > >>> till we
> > >>>> all
> > >>>> pass trough the release process.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> Piotr
> > >>>>
> > >>>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 11:06 Christofer Dutz <
> > >>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > >>>> napisał(a):
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Hi Harbs,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> makes sense.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Chris
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" <harbs.lists@gmail.com
> >:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Hi Chris,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks for you work helping with the 0.9.7 release as
> well.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I’m definitely open to improving the structure and the
> > >>> process.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> My biggest hesitation is that I don’t understand the
> > >>> current
> > >>>> release
> > >>>>> process well enough. Until recently Alex was the only one
> who
> > >>> really
> > >>>>> understood it. Yishay just went through the process so he
> has
> > >>> a good
> > >>>>> understanding now. I plan on doing another release the week
> > >>>> following next
> > >>>>> (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope is that I will
> > >>> understand it
> > >>>> better
> > >>>>> at that point. I don’t know whether Greg Dove is willing
> to do
> > >>> a
> > >>>> release,
> > >>>>> but I think it would be very valuable to get his input as
> well.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> So my proposal is that we get some more of us familiar
> > >>> with the
> > >>>> what
> > >>>>> and the why of the current process. I want to understand
> what
> > >>> was
> > >>>> done and
> > >>>>> why it was done. I don’t feel comfortable having an
> opinion on
> > >>>> changing
> > >>>>> things until I can weigh the pros and cons. I’d like more
> of
> > >>> us to
> > >>>> be in
> > >>>>> the same position so we will be in the position of building
> > >>>> consensus on
> > >>>>> changes. The reason I hope that Greg Dove specifically
> does a
> > >>>> release is
> > >>>>> because I feel he’s pretty neutral on technology and I
> think
> > >>> he’ll
> > >>>> have
> > >>>>> good valuable input.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> So here’s my proposal:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3 releases in rapid
> > >>> succession
> > >>>>> without making too many changes.
> > >>>>> 2. Let’s try and get as many of us familiar with that
> > >>> process as
> > >>>>> possible.
> > >>>>> 3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss the pain points and
> > >>> what can
> > >>>> be
> > >>>>> done to improve the structure and/or the process with pros
> and
> > >>> cons.
> > >>>> Maybe
> > >>>>> your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe something else?
> > >>> Similar?
> > >>>> Don’t
> > >>>>> know, but I’d like to get to the point where we can have an
> > >>>> intelligent
> > >>>>> discussion on the topic with different points of view. I
> don’t
> > >>> think
> > >>>> we’re
> > >>>>> quite there yet.
> > >>>>> 4. Carefully start implementing changes. Making big
> > >>> changes is
> > >>>> often
> > >>>>> disruptive and is often the cause of conflict. This is
> nothing
> > >>>> specific to
> > >>>>> us, and there’s even accepted advice on the topic. I
> suggest
> > >>> we all
> > >>>> read
> > >>>>> and follow James Duncan Davidson's “rules for
> > >>> revolutionaries”[1].
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I appreciate having your proposed changes to ponder the
> > >>> next
> > >>>> couple of
> > >>>>> weeks.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> In the meantime, please by all means, dive into Royale
> and
> > >>> create
> > >>>>> issues, pull requests, let us know difficulties, etc. I’ll
> > >>> make my
> > >>>> best
> > >>>>> effort to be as responsive as possible and help where I
> can. If
> > >>>> you’re
> > >>>>> feeling frustration, please reach out to me on Slack.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Does this make sense?
> > >>>>> Harbs
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> [1]http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries <
> > >>>>> http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Christofer Dutz <
> > >>>>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> congrats to the successful release of 0.9.7 … it greatly
> > >>>> simplified
> > >>>>> the last PLC4X release to have the artifacts out there in
> the
> > >>> wild.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I would really like to see Royale as the tool in my
> > >>> toolbox for
> > >>>>> building industrial UI applications as I sort of am not
> that
> > >>> happy
> > >>>> with the
> > >>>>> other existing alternatives.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> In order to do this I know that I have some areas of
> > >>> expertise
> > >>>> I can
> > >>>>> offer to the project … Writing ActionScript and MXML code
> is
> > >>>> definitely not
> > >>>>> where I can help best.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> However I’m really good at Java, Maven and Apache
> > >>>> Infrastructure. I
> > >>>>> know that development is most active in the ASJS repo but I
> > >>> would be
> > >>>> happy
> > >>>>> to help on the other sides ... perhaps even help the
> automated
> > >>>> testing in
> > >>>>> the ASJS repo.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I would have one proposal on how to really simplify
> > >>> things,
> > >>>> but I
> > >>>>> would be hesitant to start working on this before we have
> > >>> consensus
> > >>>> on this
> > >>>>> here.
> > >>>>>> It would probably involve multiple weeks of full time
> > >>> work in
> > >>>> total
> > >>>>> to do it for me, but I would be happy to do it, if the
> project
> > >>> would
> > >>>> accept
> > >>>>> it in the end and you folks would be willing to help with
> the
> > >>> parts
> > >>>> I’m not
> > >>>>> too deep into (Ant-, NPM build adjustments). So that’s why
> I’m
> > >>>> bringing
> > >>>>> this up here first. I know it might question some unwritten
> > >>> project
> > >>>> rules,
> > >>>>> but I would kindly ask you to not just block the
> discussion and
> > >>>> perhaps
> > >>>>> help re-evaluating why they became “project rules” and if
> the
> > >>>> assumptions
> > >>>>> were correct or still apply.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The benefit would be:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> * Less problems in getting set-up (just clone one
> > >>> repo)
> > >>>>>> * Simpler release (Only need to release one
> > >>> repository … no
> > >>>>> updating of version information in-between)
> > >>>>>> * Less things that can go wrong (I remember when
> > >>> compiler
> > >>>> was
> > >>>>> already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest wasn’t yet … there
> were
> > >>> issues
> > >>>>> discussed on the list)
> > >>>>>> * I would use the opportunity to clean up some things
> > >>> in the
> > >>>>> maven build, because despite the probably common
> assumption …
> > >>> I’m not
> > >>>>> really happy with the usability of the maven build from a
> > >>> user’s
> > >>>>> perspective … I think there’s great room for improvement
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> In general I would propose to merge all 3 repositories
> > >>> into
> > >>>> one.
> > >>>>> Right now the Maven build would probably work with
> different
> > >>>> releases of
> > >>>>> the compiler or typedefs but from what I can see … the Ant
> > >>> release
> > >>>> would
> > >>>>> probably not work without modification. So the whole idea
> of
> > >>>> releasing
> > >>>>> separately seems to be more a theoretical one. I think in
> the
> > >>>> history of
> > >>>>> FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done once (please correct
> me
> > >>> if I’m
> > >>>>> wrong). If there are external entities only interested in
> > >>> consuming
> > >>>> parts
> > >>>>> of the project, we could build source distribution for
> these
> > >>> that
> > >>>> only
> > >>>>> contain the parts they are interest in.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> * I propose to move the artifacts needed for the
> > >>> build but
> > >>>> not
> > >>>>> being part of the build (build-tools, jburg-types) into a
> > >>> separate
> > >>>>> repository where they can be released independently and
> don’t
> > >>> cause
> > >>>>> confusion like they are doing right now.
> > >>>>>> * Then I would like to create a new repository (Let’s
> > >>> call
> > >>>> it
> > >>>>> “royale”) which contains 3 directories: compiler, typedefs
> and
> > >>> asjs
> > >>>> (or
> > >>>>> even with the current “royale-“ prefix, I don’t really
> > >>> care/mind).
> > >>>>>> * Now comes the biggest block … I would need to
> > >>> completely
> > >>>>> rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the core of it would be
> also
> > >>> moved
> > >>>> to the
> > >>>>> new build-tools repository. This plugin would sort of be an
> > >>> empty
> > >>>> skeleton
> > >>>>> to load compiler plugins. This is needed as Maven can’t
> build a
> > >>>> project
> > >>>>> where a plugin used in the project is also part of the
> build
> > >>> itself.
> > >>>> So we
> > >>>>> couldn’t build all-in-one go without this change.
> > >>>>>> * Next step would be to add a new royale-parent pom
> > >>> in the
> > >>>> new
> > >>>>> root of the project, the 3 old parents would be updated to
> use
> > >>> the
> > >>>> new
> > >>>>> parent and a lot of duplicated configuration could be moved
> > >>> there,
> > >>>> hereby
> > >>>>> greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> A migration plan, could be to :
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> * create a feature-branch in all 3 repositories
> > >>>>>> * create two new repos “royale” and
> > >>> “royale-build-tools” (or
> > >>>>> whatever you want to name them)
> > >>>>>> * Start with using git submodules to import the 3
> > >>> branches
> > >>>> into
> > >>>>> the new (I know submodules really suck, but they would
> only be
> > >>>> needed until
> > >>>>> everything is finished)
> > >>>>>> * I would move/copy the build tools to the new repo
> > >>> and
> > >>>> start
> > >>>>> working on the new maven plugin
> > >>>>>> * Then I would need to update the old compiler repo to
> > >>>> produce
> > >>>>> something I can use as royale-maven-plugin plugins
> > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the typedefs to
> > >>> use the
> > >>>> new
> > >>>>> plugin
> > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the asjs repo to
> > >>> use the
> > >>>> new
> > >>>>> plugin
> > >>>>>> * Then I would add the new royale-parent pom
> > >>>>>> * After that’s done I would simplify and deduplicate
> > >>> the
> > >>>>> configuration
> > >>>>>> * Now I would definitely need some help with
> > >>> adjusting the
> > >>>> Ant
> > >>>>> and possibly NPM build to these changes (Most of them
> should be
> > >>>>> profile-names and maybe directory names or paths)
> > >>>>>> * The last thing that would be required to be done now
> > >>>> would be
> > >>>>> to remove the submodules in the “royale” repository and to
> > >>> import
> > >>>> the real
> > >>>>> repos
> > >>>>>> * After this the 3 old repos could be archived
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I am really looking forward to some open discussion on
> > >>> this.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Chris
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Piotr Zarzycki
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > >>>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>>
> > >>> Piotr Zarzycki
> > >>>
> > >>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > >>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> Piotr Zarzycki
> > >>
> > >> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > >> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Andrew Wetmore
>
> http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
Hi all,
Today I just prepared my forks of royale again and did a full release of all 3 repos and did a video recording of that.
I did find some minor quirks which I'll whip up a PR for (no profile name or directory changes).
As soon as I am finished cutting the video and removed lots minutes of jewl-theme-compilation stuff I'll publish the link to the videos here.
Chris
Am 28.05.20, 18:03 schrieb "Andrew Wetmore" <co...@gmail.com>:
Seems like the simplest way.
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:55 PM Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Infra says there's nothing in-between all or nothing with github :-(
>
> So I'll probably go down the google doc route and have the text imported
> by one of you folks.
>
> Chris
>
>
> Am 28.05.20, 17:38 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
>
> I’m going offline for two days so I’ll be quiet for a while, but it
> might be a good idea to ask infra whether they have a solution to this
> problem.
>
> Harbs
>
> > On May 28, 2020, at 5:36 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > well perhaps searching for some experiences with this ...
> > my gut-feeling would make me expect to have the wiki content
> replaced by Viagra ads ;-)
> >
> > But it would be in git, so easily undoable ....
> >
> > I did find this however:
> >
> https://www.growingwiththeweb.com/2016/07/enabling-pull-requests-on-github-wikis.html
> >
> > It's less convenient way, but probably safer.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > Am 28.05.20, 16:25 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > Hmm. That’s a problem I was not aware of...
> >
> > What do folks think about enabling public editing of wikis?[1]
> >
> > Harbs
> >
> > [1]
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> <
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> >
> >
> >> On May 28, 2020, at 5:00 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> so I just had a look ... it seems as if the "fork" feature on
> github doesn't fork the wiki too ...
> >> So I could create my own pages, but not create PRs for
> documentation ... or I just didn't find the docs on how to do it.
> >> Do you have any pointers for me?
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 28.05.20, 13:55 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> Chris,
> >>
> >> We are not using confluence at all. We are using Wiki [1], but
> you can
> >> write document in whatever place you wanted to if you are not
> comfortable
> >> with wiki.
> >>
> >> Andrew,
> >>
> >> Will you be willing to translate that document into our Wiki
> manner ?
> >>
> >> [1] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Piotr
> >>
> >> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:43 Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> >> napisał(a):
> >>
> >>> Hi Piotr,
> >>>
> >>> I think the Royale project could grant my user write permissions to
> >>> confluence.
> >>> Then I could write such a document there.
> >>>
> >>> But I could also do a google doc outside, if this is more
> convenient.
> >>>
> >>> Chris
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Am 28.05.20, 13:39 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>> Chris,
> >>>
> >>> I think I would like to be after Harbs and eventually Greg. Yes
> you can
> >>> send me a link, write a document with absolutely EVERY step
> which I
> >>> have to
> >>> do in order to get release done. Even if you think that I know
> some
> >>> steps
> >>> like signing - you can in such places point into some existing
> >>> document.
> >>>
> >>> I would like to be able to comment on every step to confront if I
> >>> really
> >>> for example had to copy/paste some command or just opposite I
> had to do
> >>> much more than only copy/paste.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Piotr
> >>>
> >>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:27 Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> >>> napisał(a):
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Piotr,
> >>>>
> >>>> we could change the configuration to use the jgit plugin on the CI
> >>> machine
> >>>> and to use the default on local machines.
> >>>> In that case you could do it on any machine you want (also
> windows)
> >>>>
> >>>> Who does releases in which order using which tooling ... I don't
> >>> really
> >>>> care ...
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm just happy that there's a line building up of people wanting
> to
> >>> do so
> >>>> and I get to use fresh releases :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> If there is anything I can help with ... just ping me and I'll be
> >>> happy to
> >>>> help.
> >>>>
> >>>> Chris
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Am 28.05.20, 13:18 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> >>> piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Harbs,
> >>>>
> >>>> I would like to be a release manager as well, but using Chri's
> >>>> implementation which as far as I know is in place. I would like
> >>> to use
> >>>> his
> >>>> mentioned 3 steps and see how much things I will have to do on
> >>> my own
> >>>> to
> >>>> make release happen. I know that I will have to do that on Mac,
> >>> cause
> >>>> there
> >>>> some Maven/Git/Jenkins related plugin which allows use Jenkins,
> >>> but it
> >>>> prevents me from pushing artifacts from windows.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have some thoughts about above proposition, but I will wait
> >>> till we
> >>>> all
> >>>> pass trough the release process.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Piotr
> >>>>
> >>>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 11:06 Christofer Dutz <
> >>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> >>>> napisał(a):
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Harbs,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> makes sense.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Chris
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Chris,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for you work helping with the 0.9.7 release as well.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I’m definitely open to improving the structure and the
> >>> process.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My biggest hesitation is that I don’t understand the
> >>> current
> >>>> release
> >>>>> process well enough. Until recently Alex was the only one who
> >>> really
> >>>>> understood it. Yishay just went through the process so he has
> >>> a good
> >>>>> understanding now. I plan on doing another release the week
> >>>> following next
> >>>>> (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope is that I will
> >>> understand it
> >>>> better
> >>>>> at that point. I don’t know whether Greg Dove is willing to do
> >>> a
> >>>> release,
> >>>>> but I think it would be very valuable to get his input as well.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So my proposal is that we get some more of us familiar
> >>> with the
> >>>> what
> >>>>> and the why of the current process. I want to understand what
> >>> was
> >>>> done and
> >>>>> why it was done. I don’t feel comfortable having an opinion on
> >>>> changing
> >>>>> things until I can weigh the pros and cons. I’d like more of
> >>> us to
> >>>> be in
> >>>>> the same position so we will be in the position of building
> >>>> consensus on
> >>>>> changes. The reason I hope that Greg Dove specifically does a
> >>>> release is
> >>>>> because I feel he’s pretty neutral on technology and I think
> >>> he’ll
> >>>> have
> >>>>> good valuable input.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So here’s my proposal:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3 releases in rapid
> >>> succession
> >>>>> without making too many changes.
> >>>>> 2. Let’s try and get as many of us familiar with that
> >>> process as
> >>>>> possible.
> >>>>> 3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss the pain points and
> >>> what can
> >>>> be
> >>>>> done to improve the structure and/or the process with pros and
> >>> cons.
> >>>> Maybe
> >>>>> your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe something else?
> >>> Similar?
> >>>> Don’t
> >>>>> know, but I’d like to get to the point where we can have an
> >>>> intelligent
> >>>>> discussion on the topic with different points of view. I don’t
> >>> think
> >>>> we’re
> >>>>> quite there yet.
> >>>>> 4. Carefully start implementing changes. Making big
> >>> changes is
> >>>> often
> >>>>> disruptive and is often the cause of conflict. This is nothing
> >>>> specific to
> >>>>> us, and there’s even accepted advice on the topic. I suggest
> >>> we all
> >>>> read
> >>>>> and follow James Duncan Davidson's “rules for
> >>> revolutionaries”[1].
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I appreciate having your proposed changes to ponder the
> >>> next
> >>>> couple of
> >>>>> weeks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In the meantime, please by all means, dive into Royale and
> >>> create
> >>>>> issues, pull requests, let us know difficulties, etc. I’ll
> >>> make my
> >>>> best
> >>>>> effort to be as responsive as possible and help where I can. If
> >>>> you’re
> >>>>> feeling frustration, please reach out to me on Slack.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Does this make sense?
> >>>>> Harbs
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1]http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries <
> >>>>> http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Christofer Dutz <
> >>>>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> congrats to the successful release of 0.9.7 … it greatly
> >>>> simplified
> >>>>> the last PLC4X release to have the artifacts out there in the
> >>> wild.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I would really like to see Royale as the tool in my
> >>> toolbox for
> >>>>> building industrial UI applications as I sort of am not that
> >>> happy
> >>>> with the
> >>>>> other existing alternatives.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In order to do this I know that I have some areas of
> >>> expertise
> >>>> I can
> >>>>> offer to the project … Writing ActionScript and MXML code is
> >>>> definitely not
> >>>>> where I can help best.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> However I’m really good at Java, Maven and Apache
> >>>> Infrastructure. I
> >>>>> know that development is most active in the ASJS repo but I
> >>> would be
> >>>> happy
> >>>>> to help on the other sides ... perhaps even help the automated
> >>>> testing in
> >>>>> the ASJS repo.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I would have one proposal on how to really simplify
> >>> things,
> >>>> but I
> >>>>> would be hesitant to start working on this before we have
> >>> consensus
> >>>> on this
> >>>>> here.
> >>>>>> It would probably involve multiple weeks of full time
> >>> work in
> >>>> total
> >>>>> to do it for me, but I would be happy to do it, if the project
> >>> would
> >>>> accept
> >>>>> it in the end and you folks would be willing to help with the
> >>> parts
> >>>> I’m not
> >>>>> too deep into (Ant-, NPM build adjustments). So that’s why I’m
> >>>> bringing
> >>>>> this up here first. I know it might question some unwritten
> >>> project
> >>>> rules,
> >>>>> but I would kindly ask you to not just block the discussion and
> >>>> perhaps
> >>>>> help re-evaluating why they became “project rules” and if the
> >>>> assumptions
> >>>>> were correct or still apply.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The benefit would be:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * Less problems in getting set-up (just clone one
> >>> repo)
> >>>>>> * Simpler release (Only need to release one
> >>> repository … no
> >>>>> updating of version information in-between)
> >>>>>> * Less things that can go wrong (I remember when
> >>> compiler
> >>>> was
> >>>>> already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest wasn’t yet … there were
> >>> issues
> >>>>> discussed on the list)
> >>>>>> * I would use the opportunity to clean up some things
> >>> in the
> >>>>> maven build, because despite the probably common assumption …
> >>> I’m not
> >>>>> really happy with the usability of the maven build from a
> >>> user’s
> >>>>> perspective … I think there’s great room for improvement
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In general I would propose to merge all 3 repositories
> >>> into
> >>>> one.
> >>>>> Right now the Maven build would probably work with different
> >>>> releases of
> >>>>> the compiler or typedefs but from what I can see … the Ant
> >>> release
> >>>> would
> >>>>> probably not work without modification. So the whole idea of
> >>>> releasing
> >>>>> separately seems to be more a theoretical one. I think in the
> >>>> history of
> >>>>> FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done once (please correct me
> >>> if I’m
> >>>>> wrong). If there are external entities only interested in
> >>> consuming
> >>>> parts
> >>>>> of the project, we could build source distribution for these
> >>> that
> >>>> only
> >>>>> contain the parts they are interest in.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * I propose to move the artifacts needed for the
> >>> build but
> >>>> not
> >>>>> being part of the build (build-tools, jburg-types) into a
> >>> separate
> >>>>> repository where they can be released independently and don’t
> >>> cause
> >>>>> confusion like they are doing right now.
> >>>>>> * Then I would like to create a new repository (Let’s
> >>> call
> >>>> it
> >>>>> “royale”) which contains 3 directories: compiler, typedefs and
> >>> asjs
> >>>> (or
> >>>>> even with the current “royale-“ prefix, I don’t really
> >>> care/mind).
> >>>>>> * Now comes the biggest block … I would need to
> >>> completely
> >>>>> rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the core of it would be also
> >>> moved
> >>>> to the
> >>>>> new build-tools repository. This plugin would sort of be an
> >>> empty
> >>>> skeleton
> >>>>> to load compiler plugins. This is needed as Maven can’t build a
> >>>> project
> >>>>> where a plugin used in the project is also part of the build
> >>> itself.
> >>>> So we
> >>>>> couldn’t build all-in-one go without this change.
> >>>>>> * Next step would be to add a new royale-parent pom
> >>> in the
> >>>> new
> >>>>> root of the project, the 3 old parents would be updated to use
> >>> the
> >>>> new
> >>>>> parent and a lot of duplicated configuration could be moved
> >>> there,
> >>>> hereby
> >>>>> greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A migration plan, could be to :
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * create a feature-branch in all 3 repositories
> >>>>>> * create two new repos “royale” and
> >>> “royale-build-tools” (or
> >>>>> whatever you want to name them)
> >>>>>> * Start with using git submodules to import the 3
> >>> branches
> >>>> into
> >>>>> the new (I know submodules really suck, but they would only be
> >>>> needed until
> >>>>> everything is finished)
> >>>>>> * I would move/copy the build tools to the new repo
> >>> and
> >>>> start
> >>>>> working on the new maven plugin
> >>>>>> * Then I would need to update the old compiler repo to
> >>>> produce
> >>>>> something I can use as royale-maven-plugin plugins
> >>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the typedefs to
> >>> use the
> >>>> new
> >>>>> plugin
> >>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the asjs repo to
> >>> use the
> >>>> new
> >>>>> plugin
> >>>>>> * Then I would add the new royale-parent pom
> >>>>>> * After that’s done I would simplify and deduplicate
> >>> the
> >>>>> configuration
> >>>>>> * Now I would definitely need some help with
> >>> adjusting the
> >>>> Ant
> >>>>> and possibly NPM build to these changes (Most of them should be
> >>>>> profile-names and maybe directory names or paths)
> >>>>>> * The last thing that would be required to be done now
> >>>> would be
> >>>>> to remove the submodules in the “royale” repository and to
> >>> import
> >>>> the real
> >>>>> repos
> >>>>>> * After this the 3 old repos could be archived
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I am really looking forward to some open discussion on
> >>> this.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Chris
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> Piotr Zarzycki
> >>>>
> >>>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> >>>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Piotr Zarzycki
> >>>
> >>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> >>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Piotr Zarzycki
> >>
> >> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> >> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
--
Andrew Wetmore
http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Posted by Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com>.
Seems like the simplest way.
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:55 PM Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Infra says there's nothing in-between all or nothing with github :-(
>
> So I'll probably go down the google doc route and have the text imported
> by one of you folks.
>
> Chris
>
>
> Am 28.05.20, 17:38 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
>
> I’m going offline for two days so I’ll be quiet for a while, but it
> might be a good idea to ask infra whether they have a solution to this
> problem.
>
> Harbs
>
> > On May 28, 2020, at 5:36 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > well perhaps searching for some experiences with this ...
> > my gut-feeling would make me expect to have the wiki content
> replaced by Viagra ads ;-)
> >
> > But it would be in git, so easily undoable ....
> >
> > I did find this however:
> >
> https://www.growingwiththeweb.com/2016/07/enabling-pull-requests-on-github-wikis.html
> >
> > It's less convenient way, but probably safer.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > Am 28.05.20, 16:25 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > Hmm. That’s a problem I was not aware of...
> >
> > What do folks think about enabling public editing of wikis?[1]
> >
> > Harbs
> >
> > [1]
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> <
> https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis
> >
> >
> >> On May 28, 2020, at 5:00 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> so I just had a look ... it seems as if the "fork" feature on
> github doesn't fork the wiki too ...
> >> So I could create my own pages, but not create PRs for
> documentation ... or I just didn't find the docs on how to do it.
> >> Do you have any pointers for me?
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 28.05.20, 13:55 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> Chris,
> >>
> >> We are not using confluence at all. We are using Wiki [1], but
> you can
> >> write document in whatever place you wanted to if you are not
> comfortable
> >> with wiki.
> >>
> >> Andrew,
> >>
> >> Will you be willing to translate that document into our Wiki
> manner ?
> >>
> >> [1] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Piotr
> >>
> >> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:43 Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> >> napisał(a):
> >>
> >>> Hi Piotr,
> >>>
> >>> I think the Royale project could grant my user write permissions to
> >>> confluence.
> >>> Then I could write such a document there.
> >>>
> >>> But I could also do a google doc outside, if this is more
> convenient.
> >>>
> >>> Chris
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Am 28.05.20, 13:39 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>> Chris,
> >>>
> >>> I think I would like to be after Harbs and eventually Greg. Yes
> you can
> >>> send me a link, write a document with absolutely EVERY step
> which I
> >>> have to
> >>> do in order to get release done. Even if you think that I know
> some
> >>> steps
> >>> like signing - you can in such places point into some existing
> >>> document.
> >>>
> >>> I would like to be able to comment on every step to confront if I
> >>> really
> >>> for example had to copy/paste some command or just opposite I
> had to do
> >>> much more than only copy/paste.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Piotr
> >>>
> >>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:27 Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> >>> napisał(a):
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Piotr,
> >>>>
> >>>> we could change the configuration to use the jgit plugin on the CI
> >>> machine
> >>>> and to use the default on local machines.
> >>>> In that case you could do it on any machine you want (also
> windows)
> >>>>
> >>>> Who does releases in which order using which tooling ... I don't
> >>> really
> >>>> care ...
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm just happy that there's a line building up of people wanting
> to
> >>> do so
> >>>> and I get to use fresh releases :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> If there is anything I can help with ... just ping me and I'll be
> >>> happy to
> >>>> help.
> >>>>
> >>>> Chris
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Am 28.05.20, 13:18 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> >>> piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Harbs,
> >>>>
> >>>> I would like to be a release manager as well, but using Chri's
> >>>> implementation which as far as I know is in place. I would like
> >>> to use
> >>>> his
> >>>> mentioned 3 steps and see how much things I will have to do on
> >>> my own
> >>>> to
> >>>> make release happen. I know that I will have to do that on Mac,
> >>> cause
> >>>> there
> >>>> some Maven/Git/Jenkins related plugin which allows use Jenkins,
> >>> but it
> >>>> prevents me from pushing artifacts from windows.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have some thoughts about above proposition, but I will wait
> >>> till we
> >>>> all
> >>>> pass trough the release process.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Piotr
> >>>>
> >>>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 11:06 Christofer Dutz <
> >>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> >>>> napisał(a):
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Harbs,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> makes sense.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Chris
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Chris,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for you work helping with the 0.9.7 release as well.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I’m definitely open to improving the structure and the
> >>> process.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My biggest hesitation is that I don’t understand the
> >>> current
> >>>> release
> >>>>> process well enough. Until recently Alex was the only one who
> >>> really
> >>>>> understood it. Yishay just went through the process so he has
> >>> a good
> >>>>> understanding now. I plan on doing another release the week
> >>>> following next
> >>>>> (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope is that I will
> >>> understand it
> >>>> better
> >>>>> at that point. I don’t know whether Greg Dove is willing to do
> >>> a
> >>>> release,
> >>>>> but I think it would be very valuable to get his input as well.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So my proposal is that we get some more of us familiar
> >>> with the
> >>>> what
> >>>>> and the why of the current process. I want to understand what
> >>> was
> >>>> done and
> >>>>> why it was done. I don’t feel comfortable having an opinion on
> >>>> changing
> >>>>> things until I can weigh the pros and cons. I’d like more of
> >>> us to
> >>>> be in
> >>>>> the same position so we will be in the position of building
> >>>> consensus on
> >>>>> changes. The reason I hope that Greg Dove specifically does a
> >>>> release is
> >>>>> because I feel he’s pretty neutral on technology and I think
> >>> he’ll
> >>>> have
> >>>>> good valuable input.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So here’s my proposal:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3 releases in rapid
> >>> succession
> >>>>> without making too many changes.
> >>>>> 2. Let’s try and get as many of us familiar with that
> >>> process as
> >>>>> possible.
> >>>>> 3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss the pain points and
> >>> what can
> >>>> be
> >>>>> done to improve the structure and/or the process with pros and
> >>> cons.
> >>>> Maybe
> >>>>> your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe something else?
> >>> Similar?
> >>>> Don’t
> >>>>> know, but I’d like to get to the point where we can have an
> >>>> intelligent
> >>>>> discussion on the topic with different points of view. I don’t
> >>> think
> >>>> we’re
> >>>>> quite there yet.
> >>>>> 4. Carefully start implementing changes. Making big
> >>> changes is
> >>>> often
> >>>>> disruptive and is often the cause of conflict. This is nothing
> >>>> specific to
> >>>>> us, and there’s even accepted advice on the topic. I suggest
> >>> we all
> >>>> read
> >>>>> and follow James Duncan Davidson's “rules for
> >>> revolutionaries”[1].
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I appreciate having your proposed changes to ponder the
> >>> next
> >>>> couple of
> >>>>> weeks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In the meantime, please by all means, dive into Royale and
> >>> create
> >>>>> issues, pull requests, let us know difficulties, etc. I’ll
> >>> make my
> >>>> best
> >>>>> effort to be as responsive as possible and help where I can. If
> >>>> you’re
> >>>>> feeling frustration, please reach out to me on Slack.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Does this make sense?
> >>>>> Harbs
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1]http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries <
> >>>>> http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Christofer Dutz <
> >>>>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> congrats to the successful release of 0.9.7 … it greatly
> >>>> simplified
> >>>>> the last PLC4X release to have the artifacts out there in the
> >>> wild.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I would really like to see Royale as the tool in my
> >>> toolbox for
> >>>>> building industrial UI applications as I sort of am not that
> >>> happy
> >>>> with the
> >>>>> other existing alternatives.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In order to do this I know that I have some areas of
> >>> expertise
> >>>> I can
> >>>>> offer to the project … Writing ActionScript and MXML code is
> >>>> definitely not
> >>>>> where I can help best.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> However I’m really good at Java, Maven and Apache
> >>>> Infrastructure. I
> >>>>> know that development is most active in the ASJS repo but I
> >>> would be
> >>>> happy
> >>>>> to help on the other sides ... perhaps even help the automated
> >>>> testing in
> >>>>> the ASJS repo.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I would have one proposal on how to really simplify
> >>> things,
> >>>> but I
> >>>>> would be hesitant to start working on this before we have
> >>> consensus
> >>>> on this
> >>>>> here.
> >>>>>> It would probably involve multiple weeks of full time
> >>> work in
> >>>> total
> >>>>> to do it for me, but I would be happy to do it, if the project
> >>> would
> >>>> accept
> >>>>> it in the end and you folks would be willing to help with the
> >>> parts
> >>>> I’m not
> >>>>> too deep into (Ant-, NPM build adjustments). So that’s why I’m
> >>>> bringing
> >>>>> this up here first. I know it might question some unwritten
> >>> project
> >>>> rules,
> >>>>> but I would kindly ask you to not just block the discussion and
> >>>> perhaps
> >>>>> help re-evaluating why they became “project rules” and if the
> >>>> assumptions
> >>>>> were correct or still apply.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The benefit would be:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * Less problems in getting set-up (just clone one
> >>> repo)
> >>>>>> * Simpler release (Only need to release one
> >>> repository … no
> >>>>> updating of version information in-between)
> >>>>>> * Less things that can go wrong (I remember when
> >>> compiler
> >>>> was
> >>>>> already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest wasn’t yet … there were
> >>> issues
> >>>>> discussed on the list)
> >>>>>> * I would use the opportunity to clean up some things
> >>> in the
> >>>>> maven build, because despite the probably common assumption …
> >>> I’m not
> >>>>> really happy with the usability of the maven build from a
> >>> user’s
> >>>>> perspective … I think there’s great room for improvement
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In general I would propose to merge all 3 repositories
> >>> into
> >>>> one.
> >>>>> Right now the Maven build would probably work with different
> >>>> releases of
> >>>>> the compiler or typedefs but from what I can see … the Ant
> >>> release
> >>>> would
> >>>>> probably not work without modification. So the whole idea of
> >>>> releasing
> >>>>> separately seems to be more a theoretical one. I think in the
> >>>> history of
> >>>>> FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done once (please correct me
> >>> if I’m
> >>>>> wrong). If there are external entities only interested in
> >>> consuming
> >>>> parts
> >>>>> of the project, we could build source distribution for these
> >>> that
> >>>> only
> >>>>> contain the parts they are interest in.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * I propose to move the artifacts needed for the
> >>> build but
> >>>> not
> >>>>> being part of the build (build-tools, jburg-types) into a
> >>> separate
> >>>>> repository where they can be released independently and don’t
> >>> cause
> >>>>> confusion like they are doing right now.
> >>>>>> * Then I would like to create a new repository (Let’s
> >>> call
> >>>> it
> >>>>> “royale”) which contains 3 directories: compiler, typedefs and
> >>> asjs
> >>>> (or
> >>>>> even with the current “royale-“ prefix, I don’t really
> >>> care/mind).
> >>>>>> * Now comes the biggest block … I would need to
> >>> completely
> >>>>> rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the core of it would be also
> >>> moved
> >>>> to the
> >>>>> new build-tools repository. This plugin would sort of be an
> >>> empty
> >>>> skeleton
> >>>>> to load compiler plugins. This is needed as Maven can’t build a
> >>>> project
> >>>>> where a plugin used in the project is also part of the build
> >>> itself.
> >>>> So we
> >>>>> couldn’t build all-in-one go without this change.
> >>>>>> * Next step would be to add a new royale-parent pom
> >>> in the
> >>>> new
> >>>>> root of the project, the 3 old parents would be updated to use
> >>> the
> >>>> new
> >>>>> parent and a lot of duplicated configuration could be moved
> >>> there,
> >>>> hereby
> >>>>> greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A migration plan, could be to :
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * create a feature-branch in all 3 repositories
> >>>>>> * create two new repos “royale” and
> >>> “royale-build-tools” (or
> >>>>> whatever you want to name them)
> >>>>>> * Start with using git submodules to import the 3
> >>> branches
> >>>> into
> >>>>> the new (I know submodules really suck, but they would only be
> >>>> needed until
> >>>>> everything is finished)
> >>>>>> * I would move/copy the build tools to the new repo
> >>> and
> >>>> start
> >>>>> working on the new maven plugin
> >>>>>> * Then I would need to update the old compiler repo to
> >>>> produce
> >>>>> something I can use as royale-maven-plugin plugins
> >>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the typedefs to
> >>> use the
> >>>> new
> >>>>> plugin
> >>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the asjs repo to
> >>> use the
> >>>> new
> >>>>> plugin
> >>>>>> * Then I would add the new royale-parent pom
> >>>>>> * After that’s done I would simplify and deduplicate
> >>> the
> >>>>> configuration
> >>>>>> * Now I would definitely need some help with
> >>> adjusting the
> >>>> Ant
> >>>>> and possibly NPM build to these changes (Most of them should be
> >>>>> profile-names and maybe directory names or paths)
> >>>>>> * The last thing that would be required to be done now
> >>>> would be
> >>>>> to remove the submodules in the “royale” repository and to
> >>> import
> >>>> the real
> >>>>> repos
> >>>>>> * After this the 3 old repos could be archived
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I am really looking forward to some open discussion on
> >>> this.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Chris
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> Piotr Zarzycki
> >>>>
> >>>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> >>>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Piotr Zarzycki
> >>>
> >>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> >>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Piotr Zarzycki
> >>
> >> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> >> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
--
Andrew Wetmore
http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
Hi all,
Infra says there's nothing in-between all or nothing with github :-(
So I'll probably go down the google doc route and have the text imported by one of you folks.
Chris
Am 28.05.20, 17:38 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
I’m going offline for two days so I’ll be quiet for a while, but it might be a good idea to ask infra whether they have a solution to this problem.
Harbs
> On May 28, 2020, at 5:36 PM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> well perhaps searching for some experiences with this ...
> my gut-feeling would make me expect to have the wiki content replaced by Viagra ads ;-)
>
> But it would be in git, so easily undoable ....
>
> I did find this however:
> https://www.growingwiththeweb.com/2016/07/enabling-pull-requests-on-github-wikis.html
>
> It's less convenient way, but probably safer.
>
> Chris
>
>
> Am 28.05.20, 16:25 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
>
> Hmm. That’s a problem I was not aware of...
>
> What do folks think about enabling public editing of wikis?[1]
>
> Harbs
>
> [1]https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis <https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis>
>
>> On May 28, 2020, at 5:00 PM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> so I just had a look ... it seems as if the "fork" feature on github doesn't fork the wiki too ...
>> So I could create my own pages, but not create PRs for documentation ... or I just didn't find the docs on how to do it.
>> Do you have any pointers for me?
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> Am 28.05.20, 13:55 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <pi...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> Chris,
>>
>> We are not using confluence at all. We are using Wiki [1], but you can
>> write document in whatever place you wanted to if you are not comfortable
>> with wiki.
>>
>> Andrew,
>>
>> Will you be willing to translate that document into our Wiki manner ?
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Piotr
>>
>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:43 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
>> napisał(a):
>>
>>> Hi Piotr,
>>>
>>> I think the Royale project could grant my user write permissions to
>>> confluence.
>>> Then I could write such a document there.
>>>
>>> But I could also do a google doc outside, if this is more convenient.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 28.05.20, 13:39 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <pi...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> Chris,
>>>
>>> I think I would like to be after Harbs and eventually Greg. Yes you can
>>> send me a link, write a document with absolutely EVERY step which I
>>> have to
>>> do in order to get release done. Even if you think that I know some
>>> steps
>>> like signing - you can in such places point into some existing
>>> document.
>>>
>>> I would like to be able to comment on every step to confront if I
>>> really
>>> for example had to copy/paste some command or just opposite I had to do
>>> much more than only copy/paste.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Piotr
>>>
>>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:27 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
>>> napisał(a):
>>>
>>>> Hi Piotr,
>>>>
>>>> we could change the configuration to use the jgit plugin on the CI
>>> machine
>>>> and to use the default on local machines.
>>>> In that case you could do it on any machine you want (also windows)
>>>>
>>>> Who does releases in which order using which tooling ... I don't
>>> really
>>>> care ...
>>>>
>>>> I'm just happy that there's a line building up of people wanting to
>>> do so
>>>> and I get to use fresh releases :-)
>>>>
>>>> If there is anything I can help with ... just ping me and I'll be
>>> happy to
>>>> help.
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 28.05.20, 13:18 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
>>> piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Harbs,
>>>>
>>>> I would like to be a release manager as well, but using Chri's
>>>> implementation which as far as I know is in place. I would like
>>> to use
>>>> his
>>>> mentioned 3 steps and see how much things I will have to do on
>>> my own
>>>> to
>>>> make release happen. I know that I will have to do that on Mac,
>>> cause
>>>> there
>>>> some Maven/Git/Jenkins related plugin which allows use Jenkins,
>>> but it
>>>> prevents me from pushing artifacts from windows.
>>>>
>>>> I have some thoughts about above proposition, but I will wait
>>> till we
>>>> all
>>>> pass trough the release process.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Piotr
>>>>
>>>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 11:06 Christofer Dutz <
>>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
>>>> napisał(a):
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Harbs,
>>>>>
>>>>> makes sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for you work helping with the 0.9.7 release as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> I’m definitely open to improving the structure and the
>>> process.
>>>>>
>>>>> My biggest hesitation is that I don’t understand the
>>> current
>>>> release
>>>>> process well enough. Until recently Alex was the only one who
>>> really
>>>>> understood it. Yishay just went through the process so he has
>>> a good
>>>>> understanding now. I plan on doing another release the week
>>>> following next
>>>>> (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope is that I will
>>> understand it
>>>> better
>>>>> at that point. I don’t know whether Greg Dove is willing to do
>>> a
>>>> release,
>>>>> but I think it would be very valuable to get his input as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> So my proposal is that we get some more of us familiar
>>> with the
>>>> what
>>>>> and the why of the current process. I want to understand what
>>> was
>>>> done and
>>>>> why it was done. I don’t feel comfortable having an opinion on
>>>> changing
>>>>> things until I can weigh the pros and cons. I’d like more of
>>> us to
>>>> be in
>>>>> the same position so we will be in the position of building
>>>> consensus on
>>>>> changes. The reason I hope that Greg Dove specifically does a
>>>> release is
>>>>> because I feel he’s pretty neutral on technology and I think
>>> he’ll
>>>> have
>>>>> good valuable input.
>>>>>
>>>>> So here’s my proposal:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3 releases in rapid
>>> succession
>>>>> without making too many changes.
>>>>> 2. Let’s try and get as many of us familiar with that
>>> process as
>>>>> possible.
>>>>> 3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss the pain points and
>>> what can
>>>> be
>>>>> done to improve the structure and/or the process with pros and
>>> cons.
>>>> Maybe
>>>>> your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe something else?
>>> Similar?
>>>> Don’t
>>>>> know, but I’d like to get to the point where we can have an
>>>> intelligent
>>>>> discussion on the topic with different points of view. I don’t
>>> think
>>>> we’re
>>>>> quite there yet.
>>>>> 4. Carefully start implementing changes. Making big
>>> changes is
>>>> often
>>>>> disruptive and is often the cause of conflict. This is nothing
>>>> specific to
>>>>> us, and there’s even accepted advice on the topic. I suggest
>>> we all
>>>> read
>>>>> and follow James Duncan Davidson's “rules for
>>> revolutionaries”[1].
>>>>>
>>>>> I appreciate having your proposed changes to ponder the
>>> next
>>>> couple of
>>>>> weeks.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the meantime, please by all means, dive into Royale and
>>> create
>>>>> issues, pull requests, let us know difficulties, etc. I’ll
>>> make my
>>>> best
>>>>> effort to be as responsive as possible and help where I can. If
>>>> you’re
>>>>> feeling frustration, please reach out to me on Slack.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this make sense?
>>>>> Harbs
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries <
>>>>> http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Christofer Dutz <
>>>>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> congrats to the successful release of 0.9.7 … it greatly
>>>> simplified
>>>>> the last PLC4X release to have the artifacts out there in the
>>> wild.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would really like to see Royale as the tool in my
>>> toolbox for
>>>>> building industrial UI applications as I sort of am not that
>>> happy
>>>> with the
>>>>> other existing alternatives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In order to do this I know that I have some areas of
>>> expertise
>>>> I can
>>>>> offer to the project … Writing ActionScript and MXML code is
>>>> definitely not
>>>>> where I can help best.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However I’m really good at Java, Maven and Apache
>>>> Infrastructure. I
>>>>> know that development is most active in the ASJS repo but I
>>> would be
>>>> happy
>>>>> to help on the other sides ... perhaps even help the automated
>>>> testing in
>>>>> the ASJS repo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would have one proposal on how to really simplify
>>> things,
>>>> but I
>>>>> would be hesitant to start working on this before we have
>>> consensus
>>>> on this
>>>>> here.
>>>>>> It would probably involve multiple weeks of full time
>>> work in
>>>> total
>>>>> to do it for me, but I would be happy to do it, if the project
>>> would
>>>> accept
>>>>> it in the end and you folks would be willing to help with the
>>> parts
>>>> I’m not
>>>>> too deep into (Ant-, NPM build adjustments). So that’s why I’m
>>>> bringing
>>>>> this up here first. I know it might question some unwritten
>>> project
>>>> rules,
>>>>> but I would kindly ask you to not just block the discussion and
>>>> perhaps
>>>>> help re-evaluating why they became “project rules” and if the
>>>> assumptions
>>>>> were correct or still apply.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The benefit would be:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Less problems in getting set-up (just clone one
>>> repo)
>>>>>> * Simpler release (Only need to release one
>>> repository … no
>>>>> updating of version information in-between)
>>>>>> * Less things that can go wrong (I remember when
>>> compiler
>>>> was
>>>>> already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest wasn’t yet … there were
>>> issues
>>>>> discussed on the list)
>>>>>> * I would use the opportunity to clean up some things
>>> in the
>>>>> maven build, because despite the probably common assumption …
>>> I’m not
>>>>> really happy with the usability of the maven build from a
>>> user’s
>>>>> perspective … I think there’s great room for improvement
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In general I would propose to merge all 3 repositories
>>> into
>>>> one.
>>>>> Right now the Maven build would probably work with different
>>>> releases of
>>>>> the compiler or typedefs but from what I can see … the Ant
>>> release
>>>> would
>>>>> probably not work without modification. So the whole idea of
>>>> releasing
>>>>> separately seems to be more a theoretical one. I think in the
>>>> history of
>>>>> FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done once (please correct me
>>> if I’m
>>>>> wrong). If there are external entities only interested in
>>> consuming
>>>> parts
>>>>> of the project, we could build source distribution for these
>>> that
>>>> only
>>>>> contain the parts they are interest in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * I propose to move the artifacts needed for the
>>> build but
>>>> not
>>>>> being part of the build (build-tools, jburg-types) into a
>>> separate
>>>>> repository where they can be released independently and don’t
>>> cause
>>>>> confusion like they are doing right now.
>>>>>> * Then I would like to create a new repository (Let’s
>>> call
>>>> it
>>>>> “royale”) which contains 3 directories: compiler, typedefs and
>>> asjs
>>>> (or
>>>>> even with the current “royale-“ prefix, I don’t really
>>> care/mind).
>>>>>> * Now comes the biggest block … I would need to
>>> completely
>>>>> rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the core of it would be also
>>> moved
>>>> to the
>>>>> new build-tools repository. This plugin would sort of be an
>>> empty
>>>> skeleton
>>>>> to load compiler plugins. This is needed as Maven can’t build a
>>>> project
>>>>> where a plugin used in the project is also part of the build
>>> itself.
>>>> So we
>>>>> couldn’t build all-in-one go without this change.
>>>>>> * Next step would be to add a new royale-parent pom
>>> in the
>>>> new
>>>>> root of the project, the 3 old parents would be updated to use
>>> the
>>>> new
>>>>> parent and a lot of duplicated configuration could be moved
>>> there,
>>>> hereby
>>>>> greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A migration plan, could be to :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * create a feature-branch in all 3 repositories
>>>>>> * create two new repos “royale” and
>>> “royale-build-tools” (or
>>>>> whatever you want to name them)
>>>>>> * Start with using git submodules to import the 3
>>> branches
>>>> into
>>>>> the new (I know submodules really suck, but they would only be
>>>> needed until
>>>>> everything is finished)
>>>>>> * I would move/copy the build tools to the new repo
>>> and
>>>> start
>>>>> working on the new maven plugin
>>>>>> * Then I would need to update the old compiler repo to
>>>> produce
>>>>> something I can use as royale-maven-plugin plugins
>>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the typedefs to
>>> use the
>>>> new
>>>>> plugin
>>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the asjs repo to
>>> use the
>>>> new
>>>>> plugin
>>>>>> * Then I would add the new royale-parent pom
>>>>>> * After that’s done I would simplify and deduplicate
>>> the
>>>>> configuration
>>>>>> * Now I would definitely need some help with
>>> adjusting the
>>>> Ant
>>>>> and possibly NPM build to these changes (Most of them should be
>>>>> profile-names and maybe directory names or paths)
>>>>>> * The last thing that would be required to be done now
>>>> would be
>>>>> to remove the submodules in the “royale” repository and to
>>> import
>>>> the real
>>>>> repos
>>>>>> * After this the 3 old repos could be archived
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am really looking forward to some open discussion on
>>> this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Piotr Zarzycki
>>>>
>>>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
>>>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Piotr Zarzycki
>>>
>>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
>>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Piotr Zarzycki
>>
>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>>
>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
I’m going offline for two days so I’ll be quiet for a while, but it might be a good idea to ask infra whether they have a solution to this problem.
Harbs
> On May 28, 2020, at 5:36 PM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> well perhaps searching for some experiences with this ...
> my gut-feeling would make me expect to have the wiki content replaced by Viagra ads ;-)
>
> But it would be in git, so easily undoable ....
>
> I did find this however:
> https://www.growingwiththeweb.com/2016/07/enabling-pull-requests-on-github-wikis.html
>
> It's less convenient way, but probably safer.
>
> Chris
>
>
> Am 28.05.20, 16:25 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
>
> Hmm. That’s a problem I was not aware of...
>
> What do folks think about enabling public editing of wikis?[1]
>
> Harbs
>
> [1]https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis <https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis>
>
>> On May 28, 2020, at 5:00 PM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> so I just had a look ... it seems as if the "fork" feature on github doesn't fork the wiki too ...
>> So I could create my own pages, but not create PRs for documentation ... or I just didn't find the docs on how to do it.
>> Do you have any pointers for me?
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> Am 28.05.20, 13:55 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <pi...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> Chris,
>>
>> We are not using confluence at all. We are using Wiki [1], but you can
>> write document in whatever place you wanted to if you are not comfortable
>> with wiki.
>>
>> Andrew,
>>
>> Will you be willing to translate that document into our Wiki manner ?
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Piotr
>>
>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:43 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
>> napisał(a):
>>
>>> Hi Piotr,
>>>
>>> I think the Royale project could grant my user write permissions to
>>> confluence.
>>> Then I could write such a document there.
>>>
>>> But I could also do a google doc outside, if this is more convenient.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 28.05.20, 13:39 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <pi...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> Chris,
>>>
>>> I think I would like to be after Harbs and eventually Greg. Yes you can
>>> send me a link, write a document with absolutely EVERY step which I
>>> have to
>>> do in order to get release done. Even if you think that I know some
>>> steps
>>> like signing - you can in such places point into some existing
>>> document.
>>>
>>> I would like to be able to comment on every step to confront if I
>>> really
>>> for example had to copy/paste some command or just opposite I had to do
>>> much more than only copy/paste.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Piotr
>>>
>>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:27 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
>>> napisał(a):
>>>
>>>> Hi Piotr,
>>>>
>>>> we could change the configuration to use the jgit plugin on the CI
>>> machine
>>>> and to use the default on local machines.
>>>> In that case you could do it on any machine you want (also windows)
>>>>
>>>> Who does releases in which order using which tooling ... I don't
>>> really
>>>> care ...
>>>>
>>>> I'm just happy that there's a line building up of people wanting to
>>> do so
>>>> and I get to use fresh releases :-)
>>>>
>>>> If there is anything I can help with ... just ping me and I'll be
>>> happy to
>>>> help.
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 28.05.20, 13:18 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
>>> piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Harbs,
>>>>
>>>> I would like to be a release manager as well, but using Chri's
>>>> implementation which as far as I know is in place. I would like
>>> to use
>>>> his
>>>> mentioned 3 steps and see how much things I will have to do on
>>> my own
>>>> to
>>>> make release happen. I know that I will have to do that on Mac,
>>> cause
>>>> there
>>>> some Maven/Git/Jenkins related plugin which allows use Jenkins,
>>> but it
>>>> prevents me from pushing artifacts from windows.
>>>>
>>>> I have some thoughts about above proposition, but I will wait
>>> till we
>>>> all
>>>> pass trough the release process.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Piotr
>>>>
>>>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 11:06 Christofer Dutz <
>>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
>>>> napisał(a):
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Harbs,
>>>>>
>>>>> makes sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for you work helping with the 0.9.7 release as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> I’m definitely open to improving the structure and the
>>> process.
>>>>>
>>>>> My biggest hesitation is that I don’t understand the
>>> current
>>>> release
>>>>> process well enough. Until recently Alex was the only one who
>>> really
>>>>> understood it. Yishay just went through the process so he has
>>> a good
>>>>> understanding now. I plan on doing another release the week
>>>> following next
>>>>> (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope is that I will
>>> understand it
>>>> better
>>>>> at that point. I don’t know whether Greg Dove is willing to do
>>> a
>>>> release,
>>>>> but I think it would be very valuable to get his input as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> So my proposal is that we get some more of us familiar
>>> with the
>>>> what
>>>>> and the why of the current process. I want to understand what
>>> was
>>>> done and
>>>>> why it was done. I don’t feel comfortable having an opinion on
>>>> changing
>>>>> things until I can weigh the pros and cons. I’d like more of
>>> us to
>>>> be in
>>>>> the same position so we will be in the position of building
>>>> consensus on
>>>>> changes. The reason I hope that Greg Dove specifically does a
>>>> release is
>>>>> because I feel he’s pretty neutral on technology and I think
>>> he’ll
>>>> have
>>>>> good valuable input.
>>>>>
>>>>> So here’s my proposal:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3 releases in rapid
>>> succession
>>>>> without making too many changes.
>>>>> 2. Let’s try and get as many of us familiar with that
>>> process as
>>>>> possible.
>>>>> 3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss the pain points and
>>> what can
>>>> be
>>>>> done to improve the structure and/or the process with pros and
>>> cons.
>>>> Maybe
>>>>> your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe something else?
>>> Similar?
>>>> Don’t
>>>>> know, but I’d like to get to the point where we can have an
>>>> intelligent
>>>>> discussion on the topic with different points of view. I don’t
>>> think
>>>> we’re
>>>>> quite there yet.
>>>>> 4. Carefully start implementing changes. Making big
>>> changes is
>>>> often
>>>>> disruptive and is often the cause of conflict. This is nothing
>>>> specific to
>>>>> us, and there’s even accepted advice on the topic. I suggest
>>> we all
>>>> read
>>>>> and follow James Duncan Davidson's “rules for
>>> revolutionaries”[1].
>>>>>
>>>>> I appreciate having your proposed changes to ponder the
>>> next
>>>> couple of
>>>>> weeks.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the meantime, please by all means, dive into Royale and
>>> create
>>>>> issues, pull requests, let us know difficulties, etc. I’ll
>>> make my
>>>> best
>>>>> effort to be as responsive as possible and help where I can. If
>>>> you’re
>>>>> feeling frustration, please reach out to me on Slack.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this make sense?
>>>>> Harbs
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries <
>>>>> http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Christofer Dutz <
>>>>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> congrats to the successful release of 0.9.7 … it greatly
>>>> simplified
>>>>> the last PLC4X release to have the artifacts out there in the
>>> wild.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would really like to see Royale as the tool in my
>>> toolbox for
>>>>> building industrial UI applications as I sort of am not that
>>> happy
>>>> with the
>>>>> other existing alternatives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In order to do this I know that I have some areas of
>>> expertise
>>>> I can
>>>>> offer to the project … Writing ActionScript and MXML code is
>>>> definitely not
>>>>> where I can help best.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However I’m really good at Java, Maven and Apache
>>>> Infrastructure. I
>>>>> know that development is most active in the ASJS repo but I
>>> would be
>>>> happy
>>>>> to help on the other sides ... perhaps even help the automated
>>>> testing in
>>>>> the ASJS repo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would have one proposal on how to really simplify
>>> things,
>>>> but I
>>>>> would be hesitant to start working on this before we have
>>> consensus
>>>> on this
>>>>> here.
>>>>>> It would probably involve multiple weeks of full time
>>> work in
>>>> total
>>>>> to do it for me, but I would be happy to do it, if the project
>>> would
>>>> accept
>>>>> it in the end and you folks would be willing to help with the
>>> parts
>>>> I’m not
>>>>> too deep into (Ant-, NPM build adjustments). So that’s why I’m
>>>> bringing
>>>>> this up here first. I know it might question some unwritten
>>> project
>>>> rules,
>>>>> but I would kindly ask you to not just block the discussion and
>>>> perhaps
>>>>> help re-evaluating why they became “project rules” and if the
>>>> assumptions
>>>>> were correct or still apply.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The benefit would be:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Less problems in getting set-up (just clone one
>>> repo)
>>>>>> * Simpler release (Only need to release one
>>> repository … no
>>>>> updating of version information in-between)
>>>>>> * Less things that can go wrong (I remember when
>>> compiler
>>>> was
>>>>> already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest wasn’t yet … there were
>>> issues
>>>>> discussed on the list)
>>>>>> * I would use the opportunity to clean up some things
>>> in the
>>>>> maven build, because despite the probably common assumption …
>>> I’m not
>>>>> really happy with the usability of the maven build from a
>>> user’s
>>>>> perspective … I think there’s great room for improvement
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In general I would propose to merge all 3 repositories
>>> into
>>>> one.
>>>>> Right now the Maven build would probably work with different
>>>> releases of
>>>>> the compiler or typedefs but from what I can see … the Ant
>>> release
>>>> would
>>>>> probably not work without modification. So the whole idea of
>>>> releasing
>>>>> separately seems to be more a theoretical one. I think in the
>>>> history of
>>>>> FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done once (please correct me
>>> if I’m
>>>>> wrong). If there are external entities only interested in
>>> consuming
>>>> parts
>>>>> of the project, we could build source distribution for these
>>> that
>>>> only
>>>>> contain the parts they are interest in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * I propose to move the artifacts needed for the
>>> build but
>>>> not
>>>>> being part of the build (build-tools, jburg-types) into a
>>> separate
>>>>> repository where they can be released independently and don’t
>>> cause
>>>>> confusion like they are doing right now.
>>>>>> * Then I would like to create a new repository (Let’s
>>> call
>>>> it
>>>>> “royale”) which contains 3 directories: compiler, typedefs and
>>> asjs
>>>> (or
>>>>> even with the current “royale-“ prefix, I don’t really
>>> care/mind).
>>>>>> * Now comes the biggest block … I would need to
>>> completely
>>>>> rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the core of it would be also
>>> moved
>>>> to the
>>>>> new build-tools repository. This plugin would sort of be an
>>> empty
>>>> skeleton
>>>>> to load compiler plugins. This is needed as Maven can’t build a
>>>> project
>>>>> where a plugin used in the project is also part of the build
>>> itself.
>>>> So we
>>>>> couldn’t build all-in-one go without this change.
>>>>>> * Next step would be to add a new royale-parent pom
>>> in the
>>>> new
>>>>> root of the project, the 3 old parents would be updated to use
>>> the
>>>> new
>>>>> parent and a lot of duplicated configuration could be moved
>>> there,
>>>> hereby
>>>>> greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A migration plan, could be to :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * create a feature-branch in all 3 repositories
>>>>>> * create two new repos “royale” and
>>> “royale-build-tools” (or
>>>>> whatever you want to name them)
>>>>>> * Start with using git submodules to import the 3
>>> branches
>>>> into
>>>>> the new (I know submodules really suck, but they would only be
>>>> needed until
>>>>> everything is finished)
>>>>>> * I would move/copy the build tools to the new repo
>>> and
>>>> start
>>>>> working on the new maven plugin
>>>>>> * Then I would need to update the old compiler repo to
>>>> produce
>>>>> something I can use as royale-maven-plugin plugins
>>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the typedefs to
>>> use the
>>>> new
>>>>> plugin
>>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the asjs repo to
>>> use the
>>>> new
>>>>> plugin
>>>>>> * Then I would add the new royale-parent pom
>>>>>> * After that’s done I would simplify and deduplicate
>>> the
>>>>> configuration
>>>>>> * Now I would definitely need some help with
>>> adjusting the
>>>> Ant
>>>>> and possibly NPM build to these changes (Most of them should be
>>>>> profile-names and maybe directory names or paths)
>>>>>> * The last thing that would be required to be done now
>>>> would be
>>>>> to remove the submodules in the “royale” repository and to
>>> import
>>>> the real
>>>>> repos
>>>>>> * After this the 3 old repos could be archived
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am really looking forward to some open discussion on
>>> this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Piotr Zarzycki
>>>>
>>>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
>>>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Piotr Zarzycki
>>>
>>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
>>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Piotr Zarzycki
>>
>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>>
>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
Hi all,
well perhaps searching for some experiences with this ...
my gut-feeling would make me expect to have the wiki content replaced by Viagra ads ;-)
But it would be in git, so easily undoable ....
I did find this however:
https://www.growingwiththeweb.com/2016/07/enabling-pull-requests-on-github-wikis.html
It's less convenient way, but probably safer.
Chris
Am 28.05.20, 16:25 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
Hmm. That’s a problem I was not aware of...
What do folks think about enabling public editing of wikis?[1]
Harbs
[1]https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis <https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis>
> On May 28, 2020, at 5:00 PM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> so I just had a look ... it seems as if the "fork" feature on github doesn't fork the wiki too ...
> So I could create my own pages, but not create PRs for documentation ... or I just didn't find the docs on how to do it.
> Do you have any pointers for me?
>
> Chris
>
>
> Am 28.05.20, 13:55 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <pi...@gmail.com>:
>
> Chris,
>
> We are not using confluence at all. We are using Wiki [1], but you can
> write document in whatever place you wanted to if you are not comfortable
> with wiki.
>
> Andrew,
>
> Will you be willing to translate that document into our Wiki manner ?
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki
>
> Thanks,
> Piotr
>
> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:43 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
> napisał(a):
>
>> Hi Piotr,
>>
>> I think the Royale project could grant my user write permissions to
>> confluence.
>> Then I could write such a document there.
>>
>> But I could also do a google doc outside, if this is more convenient.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 28.05.20, 13:39 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <pi...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> Chris,
>>
>> I think I would like to be after Harbs and eventually Greg. Yes you can
>> send me a link, write a document with absolutely EVERY step which I
>> have to
>> do in order to get release done. Even if you think that I know some
>> steps
>> like signing - you can in such places point into some existing
>> document.
>>
>> I would like to be able to comment on every step to confront if I
>> really
>> for example had to copy/paste some command or just opposite I had to do
>> much more than only copy/paste.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Piotr
>>
>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:27 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
>> napisał(a):
>>
>>> Hi Piotr,
>>>
>>> we could change the configuration to use the jgit plugin on the CI
>> machine
>>> and to use the default on local machines.
>>> In that case you could do it on any machine you want (also windows)
>>>
>>> Who does releases in which order using which tooling ... I don't
>> really
>>> care ...
>>>
>>> I'm just happy that there's a line building up of people wanting to
>> do so
>>> and I get to use fresh releases :-)
>>>
>>> If there is anything I can help with ... just ping me and I'll be
>> happy to
>>> help.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 28.05.20, 13:18 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
>> piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> Hi Harbs,
>>>
>>> I would like to be a release manager as well, but using Chri's
>>> implementation which as far as I know is in place. I would like
>> to use
>>> his
>>> mentioned 3 steps and see how much things I will have to do on
>> my own
>>> to
>>> make release happen. I know that I will have to do that on Mac,
>> cause
>>> there
>>> some Maven/Git/Jenkins related plugin which allows use Jenkins,
>> but it
>>> prevents me from pushing artifacts from windows.
>>>
>>> I have some thoughts about above proposition, but I will wait
>> till we
>>> all
>>> pass trough the release process.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Piotr
>>>
>>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 11:06 Christofer Dutz <
>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
>>> napisał(a):
>>>
>>>> Hi Harbs,
>>>>
>>>> makes sense.
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for you work helping with the 0.9.7 release as well.
>>>>
>>>> I’m definitely open to improving the structure and the
>> process.
>>>>
>>>> My biggest hesitation is that I don’t understand the
>> current
>>> release
>>>> process well enough. Until recently Alex was the only one who
>> really
>>>> understood it. Yishay just went through the process so he has
>> a good
>>>> understanding now. I plan on doing another release the week
>>> following next
>>>> (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope is that I will
>> understand it
>>> better
>>>> at that point. I don’t know whether Greg Dove is willing to do
>> a
>>> release,
>>>> but I think it would be very valuable to get his input as well.
>>>>
>>>> So my proposal is that we get some more of us familiar
>> with the
>>> what
>>>> and the why of the current process. I want to understand what
>> was
>>> done and
>>>> why it was done. I don’t feel comfortable having an opinion on
>>> changing
>>>> things until I can weigh the pros and cons. I’d like more of
>> us to
>>> be in
>>>> the same position so we will be in the position of building
>>> consensus on
>>>> changes. The reason I hope that Greg Dove specifically does a
>>> release is
>>>> because I feel he’s pretty neutral on technology and I think
>> he’ll
>>> have
>>>> good valuable input.
>>>>
>>>> So here’s my proposal:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3 releases in rapid
>> succession
>>>> without making too many changes.
>>>> 2. Let’s try and get as many of us familiar with that
>> process as
>>>> possible.
>>>> 3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss the pain points and
>> what can
>>> be
>>>> done to improve the structure and/or the process with pros and
>> cons.
>>> Maybe
>>>> your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe something else?
>> Similar?
>>> Don’t
>>>> know, but I’d like to get to the point where we can have an
>>> intelligent
>>>> discussion on the topic with different points of view. I don’t
>> think
>>> we’re
>>>> quite there yet.
>>>> 4. Carefully start implementing changes. Making big
>> changes is
>>> often
>>>> disruptive and is often the cause of conflict. This is nothing
>>> specific to
>>>> us, and there’s even accepted advice on the topic. I suggest
>> we all
>>> read
>>>> and follow James Duncan Davidson's “rules for
>> revolutionaries”[1].
>>>>
>>>> I appreciate having your proposed changes to ponder the
>> next
>>> couple of
>>>> weeks.
>>>>
>>>> In the meantime, please by all means, dive into Royale and
>> create
>>>> issues, pull requests, let us know difficulties, etc. I’ll
>> make my
>>> best
>>>> effort to be as responsive as possible and help where I can. If
>>> you’re
>>>> feeling frustration, please reach out to me on Slack.
>>>>
>>>> Does this make sense?
>>>> Harbs
>>>>
>>>> [1]http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries <
>>>> http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries>
>>>>
>>>>> On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Christofer Dutz <
>>>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> congrats to the successful release of 0.9.7 … it greatly
>>> simplified
>>>> the last PLC4X release to have the artifacts out there in the
>> wild.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would really like to see Royale as the tool in my
>> toolbox for
>>>> building industrial UI applications as I sort of am not that
>> happy
>>> with the
>>>> other existing alternatives.
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to do this I know that I have some areas of
>> expertise
>>> I can
>>>> offer to the project … Writing ActionScript and MXML code is
>>> definitely not
>>>> where I can help best.
>>>>>
>>>>> However I’m really good at Java, Maven and Apache
>>> Infrastructure. I
>>>> know that development is most active in the ASJS repo but I
>> would be
>>> happy
>>>> to help on the other sides ... perhaps even help the automated
>>> testing in
>>>> the ASJS repo.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would have one proposal on how to really simplify
>> things,
>>> but I
>>>> would be hesitant to start working on this before we have
>> consensus
>>> on this
>>>> here.
>>>>> It would probably involve multiple weeks of full time
>> work in
>>> total
>>>> to do it for me, but I would be happy to do it, if the project
>> would
>>> accept
>>>> it in the end and you folks would be willing to help with the
>> parts
>>> I’m not
>>>> too deep into (Ant-, NPM build adjustments). So that’s why I’m
>>> bringing
>>>> this up here first. I know it might question some unwritten
>> project
>>> rules,
>>>> but I would kindly ask you to not just block the discussion and
>>> perhaps
>>>> help re-evaluating why they became “project rules” and if the
>>> assumptions
>>>> were correct or still apply.
>>>>>
>>>>> The benefit would be:
>>>>>
>>>>> * Less problems in getting set-up (just clone one
>> repo)
>>>>> * Simpler release (Only need to release one
>> repository … no
>>>> updating of version information in-between)
>>>>> * Less things that can go wrong (I remember when
>> compiler
>>> was
>>>> already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest wasn’t yet … there were
>> issues
>>>> discussed on the list)
>>>>> * I would use the opportunity to clean up some things
>> in the
>>>> maven build, because despite the probably common assumption …
>> I’m not
>>>> really happy with the usability of the maven build from a
>> user’s
>>>> perspective … I think there’s great room for improvement
>>>>>
>>>>> In general I would propose to merge all 3 repositories
>> into
>>> one.
>>>> Right now the Maven build would probably work with different
>>> releases of
>>>> the compiler or typedefs but from what I can see … the Ant
>> release
>>> would
>>>> probably not work without modification. So the whole idea of
>>> releasing
>>>> separately seems to be more a theoretical one. I think in the
>>> history of
>>>> FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done once (please correct me
>> if I’m
>>>> wrong). If there are external entities only interested in
>> consuming
>>> parts
>>>> of the project, we could build source distribution for these
>> that
>>> only
>>>> contain the parts they are interest in.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> * I propose to move the artifacts needed for the
>> build but
>>> not
>>>> being part of the build (build-tools, jburg-types) into a
>> separate
>>>> repository where they can be released independently and don’t
>> cause
>>>> confusion like they are doing right now.
>>>>> * Then I would like to create a new repository (Let’s
>> call
>>> it
>>>> “royale”) which contains 3 directories: compiler, typedefs and
>> asjs
>>> (or
>>>> even with the current “royale-“ prefix, I don’t really
>> care/mind).
>>>>> * Now comes the biggest block … I would need to
>> completely
>>>> rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the core of it would be also
>> moved
>>> to the
>>>> new build-tools repository. This plugin would sort of be an
>> empty
>>> skeleton
>>>> to load compiler plugins. This is needed as Maven can’t build a
>>> project
>>>> where a plugin used in the project is also part of the build
>> itself.
>>> So we
>>>> couldn’t build all-in-one go without this change.
>>>>> * Next step would be to add a new royale-parent pom
>> in the
>>> new
>>>> root of the project, the 3 old parents would be updated to use
>> the
>>> new
>>>> parent and a lot of duplicated configuration could be moved
>> there,
>>> hereby
>>>> greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms.
>>>>>
>>>>> A migration plan, could be to :
>>>>>
>>>>> * create a feature-branch in all 3 repositories
>>>>> * create two new repos “royale” and
>> “royale-build-tools” (or
>>>> whatever you want to name them)
>>>>> * Start with using git submodules to import the 3
>> branches
>>> into
>>>> the new (I know submodules really suck, but they would only be
>>> needed until
>>>> everything is finished)
>>>>> * I would move/copy the build tools to the new repo
>> and
>>> start
>>>> working on the new maven plugin
>>>>> * Then I would need to update the old compiler repo to
>>> produce
>>>> something I can use as royale-maven-plugin plugins
>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the typedefs to
>> use the
>>> new
>>>> plugin
>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the asjs repo to
>> use the
>>> new
>>>> plugin
>>>>> * Then I would add the new royale-parent pom
>>>>> * After that’s done I would simplify and deduplicate
>> the
>>>> configuration
>>>>> * Now I would definitely need some help with
>> adjusting the
>>> Ant
>>>> and possibly NPM build to these changes (Most of them should be
>>>> profile-names and maybe directory names or paths)
>>>>> * The last thing that would be required to be done now
>>> would be
>>>> to remove the submodules in the “royale” repository and to
>> import
>>> the real
>>>> repos
>>>>> * After this the 3 old repos could be archived
>>>>>
>>>>> I am really looking forward to some open discussion on
>> this.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Piotr Zarzycki
>>>
>>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
>>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Piotr Zarzycki
>>
>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
Hmm. That’s a problem I was not aware of...
What do folks think about enabling public editing of wikis?[1]
Harbs
[1]https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis <https://help.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-community/changing-access-permissions-for-wikis>
> On May 28, 2020, at 5:00 PM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> so I just had a look ... it seems as if the "fork" feature on github doesn't fork the wiki too ...
> So I could create my own pages, but not create PRs for documentation ... or I just didn't find the docs on how to do it.
> Do you have any pointers for me?
>
> Chris
>
>
> Am 28.05.20, 13:55 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <pi...@gmail.com>:
>
> Chris,
>
> We are not using confluence at all. We are using Wiki [1], but you can
> write document in whatever place you wanted to if you are not comfortable
> with wiki.
>
> Andrew,
>
> Will you be willing to translate that document into our Wiki manner ?
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki
>
> Thanks,
> Piotr
>
> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:43 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
> napisał(a):
>
>> Hi Piotr,
>>
>> I think the Royale project could grant my user write permissions to
>> confluence.
>> Then I could write such a document there.
>>
>> But I could also do a google doc outside, if this is more convenient.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 28.05.20, 13:39 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <pi...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> Chris,
>>
>> I think I would like to be after Harbs and eventually Greg. Yes you can
>> send me a link, write a document with absolutely EVERY step which I
>> have to
>> do in order to get release done. Even if you think that I know some
>> steps
>> like signing - you can in such places point into some existing
>> document.
>>
>> I would like to be able to comment on every step to confront if I
>> really
>> for example had to copy/paste some command or just opposite I had to do
>> much more than only copy/paste.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Piotr
>>
>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:27 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
>> napisał(a):
>>
>>> Hi Piotr,
>>>
>>> we could change the configuration to use the jgit plugin on the CI
>> machine
>>> and to use the default on local machines.
>>> In that case you could do it on any machine you want (also windows)
>>>
>>> Who does releases in which order using which tooling ... I don't
>> really
>>> care ...
>>>
>>> I'm just happy that there's a line building up of people wanting to
>> do so
>>> and I get to use fresh releases :-)
>>>
>>> If there is anything I can help with ... just ping me and I'll be
>> happy to
>>> help.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 28.05.20, 13:18 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
>> piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> Hi Harbs,
>>>
>>> I would like to be a release manager as well, but using Chri's
>>> implementation which as far as I know is in place. I would like
>> to use
>>> his
>>> mentioned 3 steps and see how much things I will have to do on
>> my own
>>> to
>>> make release happen. I know that I will have to do that on Mac,
>> cause
>>> there
>>> some Maven/Git/Jenkins related plugin which allows use Jenkins,
>> but it
>>> prevents me from pushing artifacts from windows.
>>>
>>> I have some thoughts about above proposition, but I will wait
>> till we
>>> all
>>> pass trough the release process.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Piotr
>>>
>>> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 11:06 Christofer Dutz <
>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
>>> napisał(a):
>>>
>>>> Hi Harbs,
>>>>
>>>> makes sense.
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for you work helping with the 0.9.7 release as well.
>>>>
>>>> I’m definitely open to improving the structure and the
>> process.
>>>>
>>>> My biggest hesitation is that I don’t understand the
>> current
>>> release
>>>> process well enough. Until recently Alex was the only one who
>> really
>>>> understood it. Yishay just went through the process so he has
>> a good
>>>> understanding now. I plan on doing another release the week
>>> following next
>>>> (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope is that I will
>> understand it
>>> better
>>>> at that point. I don’t know whether Greg Dove is willing to do
>> a
>>> release,
>>>> but I think it would be very valuable to get his input as well.
>>>>
>>>> So my proposal is that we get some more of us familiar
>> with the
>>> what
>>>> and the why of the current process. I want to understand what
>> was
>>> done and
>>>> why it was done. I don’t feel comfortable having an opinion on
>>> changing
>>>> things until I can weigh the pros and cons. I’d like more of
>> us to
>>> be in
>>>> the same position so we will be in the position of building
>>> consensus on
>>>> changes. The reason I hope that Greg Dove specifically does a
>>> release is
>>>> because I feel he’s pretty neutral on technology and I think
>> he’ll
>>> have
>>>> good valuable input.
>>>>
>>>> So here’s my proposal:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3 releases in rapid
>> succession
>>>> without making too many changes.
>>>> 2. Let’s try and get as many of us familiar with that
>> process as
>>>> possible.
>>>> 3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss the pain points and
>> what can
>>> be
>>>> done to improve the structure and/or the process with pros and
>> cons.
>>> Maybe
>>>> your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe something else?
>> Similar?
>>> Don’t
>>>> know, but I’d like to get to the point where we can have an
>>> intelligent
>>>> discussion on the topic with different points of view. I don’t
>> think
>>> we’re
>>>> quite there yet.
>>>> 4. Carefully start implementing changes. Making big
>> changes is
>>> often
>>>> disruptive and is often the cause of conflict. This is nothing
>>> specific to
>>>> us, and there’s even accepted advice on the topic. I suggest
>> we all
>>> read
>>>> and follow James Duncan Davidson's “rules for
>> revolutionaries”[1].
>>>>
>>>> I appreciate having your proposed changes to ponder the
>> next
>>> couple of
>>>> weeks.
>>>>
>>>> In the meantime, please by all means, dive into Royale and
>> create
>>>> issues, pull requests, let us know difficulties, etc. I’ll
>> make my
>>> best
>>>> effort to be as responsive as possible and help where I can. If
>>> you’re
>>>> feeling frustration, please reach out to me on Slack.
>>>>
>>>> Does this make sense?
>>>> Harbs
>>>>
>>>> [1]http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries <
>>>> http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries>
>>>>
>>>>> On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Christofer Dutz <
>>>> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> congrats to the successful release of 0.9.7 … it greatly
>>> simplified
>>>> the last PLC4X release to have the artifacts out there in the
>> wild.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would really like to see Royale as the tool in my
>> toolbox for
>>>> building industrial UI applications as I sort of am not that
>> happy
>>> with the
>>>> other existing alternatives.
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to do this I know that I have some areas of
>> expertise
>>> I can
>>>> offer to the project … Writing ActionScript and MXML code is
>>> definitely not
>>>> where I can help best.
>>>>>
>>>>> However I’m really good at Java, Maven and Apache
>>> Infrastructure. I
>>>> know that development is most active in the ASJS repo but I
>> would be
>>> happy
>>>> to help on the other sides ... perhaps even help the automated
>>> testing in
>>>> the ASJS repo.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would have one proposal on how to really simplify
>> things,
>>> but I
>>>> would be hesitant to start working on this before we have
>> consensus
>>> on this
>>>> here.
>>>>> It would probably involve multiple weeks of full time
>> work in
>>> total
>>>> to do it for me, but I would be happy to do it, if the project
>> would
>>> accept
>>>> it in the end and you folks would be willing to help with the
>> parts
>>> I’m not
>>>> too deep into (Ant-, NPM build adjustments). So that’s why I’m
>>> bringing
>>>> this up here first. I know it might question some unwritten
>> project
>>> rules,
>>>> but I would kindly ask you to not just block the discussion and
>>> perhaps
>>>> help re-evaluating why they became “project rules” and if the
>>> assumptions
>>>> were correct or still apply.
>>>>>
>>>>> The benefit would be:
>>>>>
>>>>> * Less problems in getting set-up (just clone one
>> repo)
>>>>> * Simpler release (Only need to release one
>> repository … no
>>>> updating of version information in-between)
>>>>> * Less things that can go wrong (I remember when
>> compiler
>>> was
>>>> already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest wasn’t yet … there were
>> issues
>>>> discussed on the list)
>>>>> * I would use the opportunity to clean up some things
>> in the
>>>> maven build, because despite the probably common assumption …
>> I’m not
>>>> really happy with the usability of the maven build from a
>> user’s
>>>> perspective … I think there’s great room for improvement
>>>>>
>>>>> In general I would propose to merge all 3 repositories
>> into
>>> one.
>>>> Right now the Maven build would probably work with different
>>> releases of
>>>> the compiler or typedefs but from what I can see … the Ant
>> release
>>> would
>>>> probably not work without modification. So the whole idea of
>>> releasing
>>>> separately seems to be more a theoretical one. I think in the
>>> history of
>>>> FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done once (please correct me
>> if I’m
>>>> wrong). If there are external entities only interested in
>> consuming
>>> parts
>>>> of the project, we could build source distribution for these
>> that
>>> only
>>>> contain the parts they are interest in.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> * I propose to move the artifacts needed for the
>> build but
>>> not
>>>> being part of the build (build-tools, jburg-types) into a
>> separate
>>>> repository where they can be released independently and don’t
>> cause
>>>> confusion like they are doing right now.
>>>>> * Then I would like to create a new repository (Let’s
>> call
>>> it
>>>> “royale”) which contains 3 directories: compiler, typedefs and
>> asjs
>>> (or
>>>> even with the current “royale-“ prefix, I don’t really
>> care/mind).
>>>>> * Now comes the biggest block … I would need to
>> completely
>>>> rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the core of it would be also
>> moved
>>> to the
>>>> new build-tools repository. This plugin would sort of be an
>> empty
>>> skeleton
>>>> to load compiler plugins. This is needed as Maven can’t build a
>>> project
>>>> where a plugin used in the project is also part of the build
>> itself.
>>> So we
>>>> couldn’t build all-in-one go without this change.
>>>>> * Next step would be to add a new royale-parent pom
>> in the
>>> new
>>>> root of the project, the 3 old parents would be updated to use
>> the
>>> new
>>>> parent and a lot of duplicated configuration could be moved
>> there,
>>> hereby
>>>> greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms.
>>>>>
>>>>> A migration plan, could be to :
>>>>>
>>>>> * create a feature-branch in all 3 repositories
>>>>> * create two new repos “royale” and
>> “royale-build-tools” (or
>>>> whatever you want to name them)
>>>>> * Start with using git submodules to import the 3
>> branches
>>> into
>>>> the new (I know submodules really suck, but they would only be
>>> needed until
>>>> everything is finished)
>>>>> * I would move/copy the build tools to the new repo
>> and
>>> start
>>>> working on the new maven plugin
>>>>> * Then I would need to update the old compiler repo to
>>> produce
>>>> something I can use as royale-maven-plugin plugins
>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the typedefs to
>> use the
>>> new
>>>> plugin
>>>>> * After that’s done I would update the asjs repo to
>> use the
>>> new
>>>> plugin
>>>>> * Then I would add the new royale-parent pom
>>>>> * After that’s done I would simplify and deduplicate
>> the
>>>> configuration
>>>>> * Now I would definitely need some help with
>> adjusting the
>>> Ant
>>>> and possibly NPM build to these changes (Most of them should be
>>>> profile-names and maybe directory names or paths)
>>>>> * The last thing that would be required to be done now
>>> would be
>>>> to remove the submodules in the “royale” repository and to
>> import
>>> the real
>>>> repos
>>>>> * After this the 3 old repos could be archived
>>>>>
>>>>> I am really looking forward to some open discussion on
>> this.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Piotr Zarzycki
>>>
>>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
>>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Piotr Zarzycki
>>
>> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
>> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi Chris,
FWIK, there's no way to do a PR for wiki in Github.
I think should be done other way, maybe google doc or something
HTH
Carlos
El jue., 28 may. 2020 a las 16:00, Christofer Dutz (<
christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>) escribió:
> Hi all,
>
> so I just had a look ... it seems as if the "fork" feature on github
> doesn't fork the wiki too ...
> So I could create my own pages, but not create PRs for documentation ...
> or I just didn't find the docs on how to do it.
> Do you have any pointers for me?
>
> Chris
>
>
> Am 28.05.20, 13:55 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <pi...@gmail.com>:
>
> Chris,
>
> We are not using confluence at all. We are using Wiki [1], but you can
> write document in whatever place you wanted to if you are not
> comfortable
> with wiki.
>
> Andrew,
>
> Will you be willing to translate that document into our Wiki manner ?
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki
>
> Thanks,
> Piotr
>
> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:43 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
> napisał(a):
>
> > Hi Piotr,
> >
> > I think the Royale project could grant my user write permissions to
> > confluence.
> > Then I could write such a document there.
> >
> > But I could also do a google doc outside, if this is more convenient.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 28.05.20, 13:39 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> > I think I would like to be after Harbs and eventually Greg. Yes
> you can
> > send me a link, write a document with absolutely EVERY step
> which I
> > have to
> > do in order to get release done. Even if you think that I know
> some
> > steps
> > like signing - you can in such places point into some existing
> > document.
> >
> > I would like to be able to comment on every step to confront if I
> > really
> > for example had to copy/paste some command or just opposite I
> had to do
> > much more than only copy/paste.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Piotr
> >
> > czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:27 Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > napisał(a):
> >
> > > Hi Piotr,
> > >
> > > we could change the configuration to use the jgit plugin on
> the CI
> > machine
> > > and to use the default on local machines.
> > > In that case you could do it on any machine you want (also
> windows)
> > >
> > > Who does releases in which order using which tooling ... I
> don't
> > really
> > > care ...
> > >
> > > I'm just happy that there's a line building up of people
> wanting to
> > do so
> > > and I get to use fresh releases :-)
> > >
> > > If there is anything I can help with ... just ping me and I'll
> be
> > happy to
> > > help.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Am 28.05.20, 13:18 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> > piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > Hi Harbs,
> > >
> > > I would like to be a release manager as well, but using
> Chri's
> > > implementation which as far as I know is in place. I would
> like
> > to use
> > > his
> > > mentioned 3 steps and see how much things I will have to
> do on
> > my own
> > > to
> > > make release happen. I know that I will have to do that on
> Mac,
> > cause
> > > there
> > > some Maven/Git/Jenkins related plugin which allows use
> Jenkins,
> > but it
> > > prevents me from pushing artifacts from windows.
> > >
> > > I have some thoughts about above proposition, but I will
> wait
> > till we
> > > all
> > > pass trough the release process.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Piotr
> > >
> > > czw., 28 maj 2020 o 11:06 Christofer Dutz <
> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > > napisał(a):
> > >
> > > > Hi Harbs,
> > > >
> > > > makes sense.
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" <
> harbs.lists@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Chris,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for you work helping with the 0.9.7 release
> as well.
> > > >
> > > > I’m definitely open to improving the structure and
> the
> > process.
> > > >
> > > > My biggest hesitation is that I don’t understand the
> > current
> > > release
> > > > process well enough. Until recently Alex was the only
> one who
> > really
> > > > understood it. Yishay just went through the process so
> he has
> > a good
> > > > understanding now. I plan on doing another release the
> week
> > > following next
> > > > (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope is that I will
> > understand it
> > > better
> > > > at that point. I don’t know whether Greg Dove is willing
> to do
> > a
> > > release,
> > > > but I think it would be very valuable to get his input
> as well.
> > > >
> > > > So my proposal is that we get some more of us
> familiar
> > with the
> > > what
> > > > and the why of the current process. I want to understand
> what
> > was
> > > done and
> > > > why it was done. I don’t feel comfortable having an
> opinion on
> > > changing
> > > > things until I can weigh the pros and cons. I’d like
> more of
> > us to
> > > be in
> > > > the same position so we will be in the position of
> building
> > > consensus on
> > > > changes. The reason I hope that Greg Dove specifically
> does a
> > > release is
> > > > because I feel he’s pretty neutral on technology and I
> think
> > he’ll
> > > have
> > > > good valuable input.
> > > >
> > > > So here’s my proposal:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3 releases in rapid
> > succession
> > > > without making too many changes.
> > > > 2. Let’s try and get as many of us familiar with that
> > process as
> > > > possible.
> > > > 3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss the pain points
> and
> > what can
> > > be
> > > > done to improve the structure and/or the process with
> pros and
> > cons.
> > > Maybe
> > > > your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe something else?
> > Similar?
> > > Don’t
> > > > know, but I’d like to get to the point where we can have
> an
> > > intelligent
> > > > discussion on the topic with different points of view. I
> don’t
> > think
> > > we’re
> > > > quite there yet.
> > > > 4. Carefully start implementing changes. Making big
> > changes is
> > > often
> > > > disruptive and is often the cause of conflict. This is
> nothing
> > > specific to
> > > > us, and there’s even accepted advice on the topic. I
> suggest
> > we all
> > > read
> > > > and follow James Duncan Davidson's “rules for
> > revolutionaries”[1].
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate having your proposed changes to ponder
> the
> > next
> > > couple of
> > > > weeks.
> > > >
> > > > In the meantime, please by all means, dive into
> Royale and
> > create
> > > > issues, pull requests, let us know difficulties, etc.
> I’ll
> > make my
> > > best
> > > > effort to be as responsive as possible and help where I
> can. If
> > > you’re
> > > > feeling frustration, please reach out to me on Slack.
> > > >
> > > > Does this make sense?
> > > > Harbs
> > > >
> > > > [1]http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries <
> > > > http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries>
> > > >
> > > > > On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Christofer Dutz <
> > > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > congrats to the successful release of 0.9.7 … it
> greatly
> > > simplified
> > > > the last PLC4X release to have the artifacts out there
> in the
> > wild.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would really like to see Royale as the tool in my
> > toolbox for
> > > > building industrial UI applications as I sort of am not
> that
> > happy
> > > with the
> > > > other existing alternatives.
> > > > >
> > > > > In order to do this I know that I have some areas
> of
> > expertise
> > > I can
> > > > offer to the project … Writing ActionScript and MXML
> code is
> > > definitely not
> > > > where I can help best.
> > > > >
> > > > > However I’m really good at Java, Maven and Apache
> > > Infrastructure. I
> > > > know that development is most active in the ASJS repo
> but I
> > would be
> > > happy
> > > > to help on the other sides ... perhaps even help the
> automated
> > > testing in
> > > > the ASJS repo.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would have one proposal on how to really simplify
> > things,
> > > but I
> > > > would be hesitant to start working on this before we have
> > consensus
> > > on this
> > > > here.
> > > > > It would probably involve multiple weeks of full
> time
> > work in
> > > total
> > > > to do it for me, but I would be happy to do it, if the
> project
> > would
> > > accept
> > > > it in the end and you folks would be willing to help
> with the
> > parts
> > > I’m not
> > > > too deep into (Ant-, NPM build adjustments). So that’s
> why I’m
> > > bringing
> > > > this up here first. I know it might question some
> unwritten
> > project
> > > rules,
> > > > but I would kindly ask you to not just block the
> discussion and
> > > perhaps
> > > > help re-evaluating why they became “project rules” and
> if the
> > > assumptions
> > > > were correct or still apply.
> > > > >
> > > > > The benefit would be:
> > > > >
> > > > > * Less problems in getting set-up (just clone
> one
> > repo)
> > > > > * Simpler release (Only need to release one
> > repository … no
> > > > updating of version information in-between)
> > > > > * Less things that can go wrong (I remember when
> > compiler
> > > was
> > > > already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest wasn’t yet …
> there were
> > issues
> > > > discussed on the list)
> > > > > * I would use the opportunity to clean up some
> things
> > in the
> > > > maven build, because despite the probably common
> assumption …
> > I’m not
> > > > really happy with the usability of the maven build from a
> > user’s
> > > > perspective … I think there’s great room for improvement
> > > > >
> > > > > In general I would propose to merge all 3
> repositories
> > into
> > > one.
> > > > Right now the Maven build would probably work with
> different
> > > releases of
> > > > the compiler or typedefs but from what I can see … the
> Ant
> > release
> > > would
> > > > probably not work without modification. So the whole
> idea of
> > > releasing
> > > > separately seems to be more a theoretical one. I think
> in the
> > > history of
> > > > FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done once (please
> correct me
> > if I’m
> > > > wrong). If there are external entities only interested in
> > consuming
> > > parts
> > > > of the project, we could build source distribution for
> these
> > that
> > > only
> > > > contain the parts they are interest in.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > * I propose to move the artifacts needed for the
> > build but
> > > not
> > > > being part of the build (build-tools, jburg-types) into a
> > separate
> > > > repository where they can be released independently and
> don’t
> > cause
> > > > confusion like they are doing right now.
> > > > > * Then I would like to create a new repository
> (Let’s
> > call
> > > it
> > > > “royale”) which contains 3 directories: compiler,
> typedefs and
> > asjs
> > > (or
> > > > even with the current “royale-“ prefix, I don’t really
> > care/mind).
> > > > > * Now comes the biggest block … I would need to
> > completely
> > > > rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the core of it would
> be also
> > moved
> > > to the
> > > > new build-tools repository. This plugin would sort of be
> an
> > empty
> > > skeleton
> > > > to load compiler plugins. This is needed as Maven can’t
> build a
> > > project
> > > > where a plugin used in the project is also part of the
> build
> > itself.
> > > So we
> > > > couldn’t build all-in-one go without this change.
> > > > > * Next step would be to add a new royale-parent
> pom
> > in the
> > > new
> > > > root of the project, the 3 old parents would be updated
> to use
> > the
> > > new
> > > > parent and a lot of duplicated configuration could be
> moved
> > there,
> > > hereby
> > > > greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms.
> > > > >
> > > > > A migration plan, could be to :
> > > > >
> > > > > * create a feature-branch in all 3 repositories
> > > > > * create two new repos “royale” and
> > “royale-build-tools” (or
> > > > whatever you want to name them)
> > > > > * Start with using git submodules to import the
> 3
> > branches
> > > into
> > > > the new (I know submodules really suck, but they would
> only be
> > > needed until
> > > > everything is finished)
> > > > > * I would move/copy the build tools to the new
> repo
> > and
> > > start
> > > > working on the new maven plugin
> > > > > * Then I would need to update the old compiler
> repo to
> > > produce
> > > > something I can use as royale-maven-plugin plugins
> > > > > * After that’s done I would update the typedefs
> to
> > use the
> > > new
> > > > plugin
> > > > > * After that’s done I would update the asjs
> repo to
> > use the
> > > new
> > > > plugin
> > > > > * Then I would add the new royale-parent pom
> > > > > * After that’s done I would simplify and
> deduplicate
> > the
> > > > configuration
> > > > > * Now I would definitely need some help with
> > adjusting the
> > > Ant
> > > > and possibly NPM build to these changes (Most of them
> should be
> > > > profile-names and maybe directory names or paths)
> > > > > * The last thing that would be required to be
> done now
> > > would be
> > > > to remove the submodules in the “royale” repository and
> to
> > import
> > > the real
> > > > repos
> > > > > * After this the 3 old repos could be archived
> > > > >
> > > > > I am really looking forward to some open
> discussion on
> > this.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Piotr Zarzycki
> > >
> > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
Hi all,
so I just had a look ... it seems as if the "fork" feature on github doesn't fork the wiki too ...
So I could create my own pages, but not create PRs for documentation ... or I just didn't find the docs on how to do it.
Do you have any pointers for me?
Chris
Am 28.05.20, 13:55 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <pi...@gmail.com>:
Chris,
We are not using confluence at all. We are using Wiki [1], but you can
write document in whatever place you wanted to if you are not comfortable
with wiki.
Andrew,
Will you be willing to translate that document into our Wiki manner ?
[1] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki
Thanks,
Piotr
czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:43 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
napisał(a):
> Hi Piotr,
>
> I think the Royale project could grant my user write permissions to
> confluence.
> Then I could write such a document there.
>
> But I could also do a google doc outside, if this is more convenient.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> Am 28.05.20, 13:39 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <pi...@gmail.com>:
>
> Chris,
>
> I think I would like to be after Harbs and eventually Greg. Yes you can
> send me a link, write a document with absolutely EVERY step which I
> have to
> do in order to get release done. Even if you think that I know some
> steps
> like signing - you can in such places point into some existing
> document.
>
> I would like to be able to comment on every step to confront if I
> really
> for example had to copy/paste some command or just opposite I had to do
> much more than only copy/paste.
>
> Thanks,
> Piotr
>
> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:27 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
> napisał(a):
>
> > Hi Piotr,
> >
> > we could change the configuration to use the jgit plugin on the CI
> machine
> > and to use the default on local machines.
> > In that case you could do it on any machine you want (also windows)
> >
> > Who does releases in which order using which tooling ... I don't
> really
> > care ...
> >
> > I'm just happy that there's a line building up of people wanting to
> do so
> > and I get to use fresh releases :-)
> >
> > If there is anything I can help with ... just ping me and I'll be
> happy to
> > help.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 28.05.20, 13:18 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> >
> > Hi Harbs,
> >
> > I would like to be a release manager as well, but using Chri's
> > implementation which as far as I know is in place. I would like
> to use
> > his
> > mentioned 3 steps and see how much things I will have to do on
> my own
> > to
> > make release happen. I know that I will have to do that on Mac,
> cause
> > there
> > some Maven/Git/Jenkins related plugin which allows use Jenkins,
> but it
> > prevents me from pushing artifacts from windows.
> >
> > I have some thoughts about above proposition, but I will wait
> till we
> > all
> > pass trough the release process.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Piotr
> >
> > czw., 28 maj 2020 o 11:06 Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > napisał(a):
> >
> > > Hi Harbs,
> > >
> > > makes sense.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > Hi Chris,
> > >
> > > Thanks for you work helping with the 0.9.7 release as well.
> > >
> > > I’m definitely open to improving the structure and the
> process.
> > >
> > > My biggest hesitation is that I don’t understand the
> current
> > release
> > > process well enough. Until recently Alex was the only one who
> really
> > > understood it. Yishay just went through the process so he has
> a good
> > > understanding now. I plan on doing another release the week
> > following next
> > > (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope is that I will
> understand it
> > better
> > > at that point. I don’t know whether Greg Dove is willing to do
> a
> > release,
> > > but I think it would be very valuable to get his input as well.
> > >
> > > So my proposal is that we get some more of us familiar
> with the
> > what
> > > and the why of the current process. I want to understand what
> was
> > done and
> > > why it was done. I don’t feel comfortable having an opinion on
> > changing
> > > things until I can weigh the pros and cons. I’d like more of
> us to
> > be in
> > > the same position so we will be in the position of building
> > consensus on
> > > changes. The reason I hope that Greg Dove specifically does a
> > release is
> > > because I feel he’s pretty neutral on technology and I think
> he’ll
> > have
> > > good valuable input.
> > >
> > > So here’s my proposal:
> > >
> > > 1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3 releases in rapid
> succession
> > > without making too many changes.
> > > 2. Let’s try and get as many of us familiar with that
> process as
> > > possible.
> > > 3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss the pain points and
> what can
> > be
> > > done to improve the structure and/or the process with pros and
> cons.
> > Maybe
> > > your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe something else?
> Similar?
> > Don’t
> > > know, but I’d like to get to the point where we can have an
> > intelligent
> > > discussion on the topic with different points of view. I don’t
> think
> > we’re
> > > quite there yet.
> > > 4. Carefully start implementing changes. Making big
> changes is
> > often
> > > disruptive and is often the cause of conflict. This is nothing
> > specific to
> > > us, and there’s even accepted advice on the topic. I suggest
> we all
> > read
> > > and follow James Duncan Davidson's “rules for
> revolutionaries”[1].
> > >
> > > I appreciate having your proposed changes to ponder the
> next
> > couple of
> > > weeks.
> > >
> > > In the meantime, please by all means, dive into Royale and
> create
> > > issues, pull requests, let us know difficulties, etc. I’ll
> make my
> > best
> > > effort to be as responsive as possible and help where I can. If
> > you’re
> > > feeling frustration, please reach out to me on Slack.
> > >
> > > Does this make sense?
> > > Harbs
> > >
> > > [1]http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries <
> > > http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries>
> > >
> > > > On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Christofer Dutz <
> > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > congrats to the successful release of 0.9.7 … it greatly
> > simplified
> > > the last PLC4X release to have the artifacts out there in the
> wild.
> > > >
> > > > I would really like to see Royale as the tool in my
> toolbox for
> > > building industrial UI applications as I sort of am not that
> happy
> > with the
> > > other existing alternatives.
> > > >
> > > > In order to do this I know that I have some areas of
> expertise
> > I can
> > > offer to the project … Writing ActionScript and MXML code is
> > definitely not
> > > where I can help best.
> > > >
> > > > However I’m really good at Java, Maven and Apache
> > Infrastructure. I
> > > know that development is most active in the ASJS repo but I
> would be
> > happy
> > > to help on the other sides ... perhaps even help the automated
> > testing in
> > > the ASJS repo.
> > > >
> > > > I would have one proposal on how to really simplify
> things,
> > but I
> > > would be hesitant to start working on this before we have
> consensus
> > on this
> > > here.
> > > > It would probably involve multiple weeks of full time
> work in
> > total
> > > to do it for me, but I would be happy to do it, if the project
> would
> > accept
> > > it in the end and you folks would be willing to help with the
> parts
> > I’m not
> > > too deep into (Ant-, NPM build adjustments). So that’s why I’m
> > bringing
> > > this up here first. I know it might question some unwritten
> project
> > rules,
> > > but I would kindly ask you to not just block the discussion and
> > perhaps
> > > help re-evaluating why they became “project rules” and if the
> > assumptions
> > > were correct or still apply.
> > > >
> > > > The benefit would be:
> > > >
> > > > * Less problems in getting set-up (just clone one
> repo)
> > > > * Simpler release (Only need to release one
> repository … no
> > > updating of version information in-between)
> > > > * Less things that can go wrong (I remember when
> compiler
> > was
> > > already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest wasn’t yet … there were
> issues
> > > discussed on the list)
> > > > * I would use the opportunity to clean up some things
> in the
> > > maven build, because despite the probably common assumption …
> I’m not
> > > really happy with the usability of the maven build from a
> user’s
> > > perspective … I think there’s great room for improvement
> > > >
> > > > In general I would propose to merge all 3 repositories
> into
> > one.
> > > Right now the Maven build would probably work with different
> > releases of
> > > the compiler or typedefs but from what I can see … the Ant
> release
> > would
> > > probably not work without modification. So the whole idea of
> > releasing
> > > separately seems to be more a theoretical one. I think in the
> > history of
> > > FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done once (please correct me
> if I’m
> > > wrong). If there are external entities only interested in
> consuming
> > parts
> > > of the project, we could build source distribution for these
> that
> > only
> > > contain the parts they are interest in.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > * I propose to move the artifacts needed for the
> build but
> > not
> > > being part of the build (build-tools, jburg-types) into a
> separate
> > > repository where they can be released independently and don’t
> cause
> > > confusion like they are doing right now.
> > > > * Then I would like to create a new repository (Let’s
> call
> > it
> > > “royale”) which contains 3 directories: compiler, typedefs and
> asjs
> > (or
> > > even with the current “royale-“ prefix, I don’t really
> care/mind).
> > > > * Now comes the biggest block … I would need to
> completely
> > > rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the core of it would be also
> moved
> > to the
> > > new build-tools repository. This plugin would sort of be an
> empty
> > skeleton
> > > to load compiler plugins. This is needed as Maven can’t build a
> > project
> > > where a plugin used in the project is also part of the build
> itself.
> > So we
> > > couldn’t build all-in-one go without this change.
> > > > * Next step would be to add a new royale-parent pom
> in the
> > new
> > > root of the project, the 3 old parents would be updated to use
> the
> > new
> > > parent and a lot of duplicated configuration could be moved
> there,
> > hereby
> > > greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms.
> > > >
> > > > A migration plan, could be to :
> > > >
> > > > * create a feature-branch in all 3 repositories
> > > > * create two new repos “royale” and
> “royale-build-tools” (or
> > > whatever you want to name them)
> > > > * Start with using git submodules to import the 3
> branches
> > into
> > > the new (I know submodules really suck, but they would only be
> > needed until
> > > everything is finished)
> > > > * I would move/copy the build tools to the new repo
> and
> > start
> > > working on the new maven plugin
> > > > * Then I would need to update the old compiler repo to
> > produce
> > > something I can use as royale-maven-plugin plugins
> > > > * After that’s done I would update the typedefs to
> use the
> > new
> > > plugin
> > > > * After that’s done I would update the asjs repo to
> use the
> > new
> > > plugin
> > > > * Then I would add the new royale-parent pom
> > > > * After that’s done I would simplify and deduplicate
> the
> > > configuration
> > > > * Now I would definitely need some help with
> adjusting the
> > Ant
> > > and possibly NPM build to these changes (Most of them should be
> > > profile-names and maybe directory names or paths)
> > > > * The last thing that would be required to be done now
> > would be
> > > to remove the submodules in the “royale” repository and to
> import
> > the real
> > > repos
> > > > * After this the 3 old repos could be archived
> > > >
> > > > I am really looking forward to some open discussion on
> this.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>
>
--
Piotr Zarzycki
Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Posted by Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>.
Chris,
We are not using confluence at all. We are using Wiki [1], but you can
write document in whatever place you wanted to if you are not comfortable
with wiki.
Andrew,
Will you be willing to translate that document into our Wiki manner ?
[1] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki
Thanks,
Piotr
czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:43 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
napisał(a):
> Hi Piotr,
>
> I think the Royale project could grant my user write permissions to
> confluence.
> Then I could write such a document there.
>
> But I could also do a google doc outside, if this is more convenient.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> Am 28.05.20, 13:39 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <pi...@gmail.com>:
>
> Chris,
>
> I think I would like to be after Harbs and eventually Greg. Yes you can
> send me a link, write a document with absolutely EVERY step which I
> have to
> do in order to get release done. Even if you think that I know some
> steps
> like signing - you can in such places point into some existing
> document.
>
> I would like to be able to comment on every step to confront if I
> really
> for example had to copy/paste some command or just opposite I had to do
> much more than only copy/paste.
>
> Thanks,
> Piotr
>
> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:27 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
> napisał(a):
>
> > Hi Piotr,
> >
> > we could change the configuration to use the jgit plugin on the CI
> machine
> > and to use the default on local machines.
> > In that case you could do it on any machine you want (also windows)
> >
> > Who does releases in which order using which tooling ... I don't
> really
> > care ...
> >
> > I'm just happy that there's a line building up of people wanting to
> do so
> > and I get to use fresh releases :-)
> >
> > If there is anything I can help with ... just ping me and I'll be
> happy to
> > help.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 28.05.20, 13:18 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <
> piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> >
> > Hi Harbs,
> >
> > I would like to be a release manager as well, but using Chri's
> > implementation which as far as I know is in place. I would like
> to use
> > his
> > mentioned 3 steps and see how much things I will have to do on
> my own
> > to
> > make release happen. I know that I will have to do that on Mac,
> cause
> > there
> > some Maven/Git/Jenkins related plugin which allows use Jenkins,
> but it
> > prevents me from pushing artifacts from windows.
> >
> > I have some thoughts about above proposition, but I will wait
> till we
> > all
> > pass trough the release process.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Piotr
> >
> > czw., 28 maj 2020 o 11:06 Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>
> > napisał(a):
> >
> > > Hi Harbs,
> > >
> > > makes sense.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > Hi Chris,
> > >
> > > Thanks for you work helping with the 0.9.7 release as well.
> > >
> > > I’m definitely open to improving the structure and the
> process.
> > >
> > > My biggest hesitation is that I don’t understand the
> current
> > release
> > > process well enough. Until recently Alex was the only one who
> really
> > > understood it. Yishay just went through the process so he has
> a good
> > > understanding now. I plan on doing another release the week
> > following next
> > > (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope is that I will
> understand it
> > better
> > > at that point. I don’t know whether Greg Dove is willing to do
> a
> > release,
> > > but I think it would be very valuable to get his input as well.
> > >
> > > So my proposal is that we get some more of us familiar
> with the
> > what
> > > and the why of the current process. I want to understand what
> was
> > done and
> > > why it was done. I don’t feel comfortable having an opinion on
> > changing
> > > things until I can weigh the pros and cons. I’d like more of
> us to
> > be in
> > > the same position so we will be in the position of building
> > consensus on
> > > changes. The reason I hope that Greg Dove specifically does a
> > release is
> > > because I feel he’s pretty neutral on technology and I think
> he’ll
> > have
> > > good valuable input.
> > >
> > > So here’s my proposal:
> > >
> > > 1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3 releases in rapid
> succession
> > > without making too many changes.
> > > 2. Let’s try and get as many of us familiar with that
> process as
> > > possible.
> > > 3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss the pain points and
> what can
> > be
> > > done to improve the structure and/or the process with pros and
> cons.
> > Maybe
> > > your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe something else?
> Similar?
> > Don’t
> > > know, but I’d like to get to the point where we can have an
> > intelligent
> > > discussion on the topic with different points of view. I don’t
> think
> > we’re
> > > quite there yet.
> > > 4. Carefully start implementing changes. Making big
> changes is
> > often
> > > disruptive and is often the cause of conflict. This is nothing
> > specific to
> > > us, and there’s even accepted advice on the topic. I suggest
> we all
> > read
> > > and follow James Duncan Davidson's “rules for
> revolutionaries”[1].
> > >
> > > I appreciate having your proposed changes to ponder the
> next
> > couple of
> > > weeks.
> > >
> > > In the meantime, please by all means, dive into Royale and
> create
> > > issues, pull requests, let us know difficulties, etc. I’ll
> make my
> > best
> > > effort to be as responsive as possible and help where I can. If
> > you’re
> > > feeling frustration, please reach out to me on Slack.
> > >
> > > Does this make sense?
> > > Harbs
> > >
> > > [1]http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries <
> > > http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries>
> > >
> > > > On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Christofer Dutz <
> > > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > congrats to the successful release of 0.9.7 … it greatly
> > simplified
> > > the last PLC4X release to have the artifacts out there in the
> wild.
> > > >
> > > > I would really like to see Royale as the tool in my
> toolbox for
> > > building industrial UI applications as I sort of am not that
> happy
> > with the
> > > other existing alternatives.
> > > >
> > > > In order to do this I know that I have some areas of
> expertise
> > I can
> > > offer to the project … Writing ActionScript and MXML code is
> > definitely not
> > > where I can help best.
> > > >
> > > > However I’m really good at Java, Maven and Apache
> > Infrastructure. I
> > > know that development is most active in the ASJS repo but I
> would be
> > happy
> > > to help on the other sides ... perhaps even help the automated
> > testing in
> > > the ASJS repo.
> > > >
> > > > I would have one proposal on how to really simplify
> things,
> > but I
> > > would be hesitant to start working on this before we have
> consensus
> > on this
> > > here.
> > > > It would probably involve multiple weeks of full time
> work in
> > total
> > > to do it for me, but I would be happy to do it, if the project
> would
> > accept
> > > it in the end and you folks would be willing to help with the
> parts
> > I’m not
> > > too deep into (Ant-, NPM build adjustments). So that’s why I’m
> > bringing
> > > this up here first. I know it might question some unwritten
> project
> > rules,
> > > but I would kindly ask you to not just block the discussion and
> > perhaps
> > > help re-evaluating why they became “project rules” and if the
> > assumptions
> > > were correct or still apply.
> > > >
> > > > The benefit would be:
> > > >
> > > > * Less problems in getting set-up (just clone one
> repo)
> > > > * Simpler release (Only need to release one
> repository … no
> > > updating of version information in-between)
> > > > * Less things that can go wrong (I remember when
> compiler
> > was
> > > already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest wasn’t yet … there were
> issues
> > > discussed on the list)
> > > > * I would use the opportunity to clean up some things
> in the
> > > maven build, because despite the probably common assumption …
> I’m not
> > > really happy with the usability of the maven build from a
> user’s
> > > perspective … I think there’s great room for improvement
> > > >
> > > > In general I would propose to merge all 3 repositories
> into
> > one.
> > > Right now the Maven build would probably work with different
> > releases of
> > > the compiler or typedefs but from what I can see … the Ant
> release
> > would
> > > probably not work without modification. So the whole idea of
> > releasing
> > > separately seems to be more a theoretical one. I think in the
> > history of
> > > FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done once (please correct me
> if I’m
> > > wrong). If there are external entities only interested in
> consuming
> > parts
> > > of the project, we could build source distribution for these
> that
> > only
> > > contain the parts they are interest in.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > * I propose to move the artifacts needed for the
> build but
> > not
> > > being part of the build (build-tools, jburg-types) into a
> separate
> > > repository where they can be released independently and don’t
> cause
> > > confusion like they are doing right now.
> > > > * Then I would like to create a new repository (Let’s
> call
> > it
> > > “royale”) which contains 3 directories: compiler, typedefs and
> asjs
> > (or
> > > even with the current “royale-“ prefix, I don’t really
> care/mind).
> > > > * Now comes the biggest block … I would need to
> completely
> > > rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the core of it would be also
> moved
> > to the
> > > new build-tools repository. This plugin would sort of be an
> empty
> > skeleton
> > > to load compiler plugins. This is needed as Maven can’t build a
> > project
> > > where a plugin used in the project is also part of the build
> itself.
> > So we
> > > couldn’t build all-in-one go without this change.
> > > > * Next step would be to add a new royale-parent pom
> in the
> > new
> > > root of the project, the 3 old parents would be updated to use
> the
> > new
> > > parent and a lot of duplicated configuration could be moved
> there,
> > hereby
> > > greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms.
> > > >
> > > > A migration plan, could be to :
> > > >
> > > > * create a feature-branch in all 3 repositories
> > > > * create two new repos “royale” and
> “royale-build-tools” (or
> > > whatever you want to name them)
> > > > * Start with using git submodules to import the 3
> branches
> > into
> > > the new (I know submodules really suck, but they would only be
> > needed until
> > > everything is finished)
> > > > * I would move/copy the build tools to the new repo
> and
> > start
> > > working on the new maven plugin
> > > > * Then I would need to update the old compiler repo to
> > produce
> > > something I can use as royale-maven-plugin plugins
> > > > * After that’s done I would update the typedefs to
> use the
> > new
> > > plugin
> > > > * After that’s done I would update the asjs repo to
> use the
> > new
> > > plugin
> > > > * Then I would add the new royale-parent pom
> > > > * After that’s done I would simplify and deduplicate
> the
> > > configuration
> > > > * Now I would definitely need some help with
> adjusting the
> > Ant
> > > and possibly NPM build to these changes (Most of them should be
> > > profile-names and maybe directory names or paths)
> > > > * The last thing that would be required to be done now
> > would be
> > > to remove the submodules in the “royale” repository and to
> import
> > the real
> > > repos
> > > > * After this the 3 old repos could be archived
> > > >
> > > > I am really looking forward to some open discussion on
> this.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>
>
--
Piotr Zarzycki
Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
Hi Piotr,
I think the Royale project could grant my user write permissions to confluence.
Then I could write such a document there.
But I could also do a google doc outside, if this is more convenient.
Chris
Am 28.05.20, 13:39 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <pi...@gmail.com>:
Chris,
I think I would like to be after Harbs and eventually Greg. Yes you can
send me a link, write a document with absolutely EVERY step which I have to
do in order to get release done. Even if you think that I know some steps
like signing - you can in such places point into some existing document.
I would like to be able to comment on every step to confront if I really
for example had to copy/paste some command or just opposite I had to do
much more than only copy/paste.
Thanks,
Piotr
czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:27 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
napisał(a):
> Hi Piotr,
>
> we could change the configuration to use the jgit plugin on the CI machine
> and to use the default on local machines.
> In that case you could do it on any machine you want (also windows)
>
> Who does releases in which order using which tooling ... I don't really
> care ...
>
> I'm just happy that there's a line building up of people wanting to do so
> and I get to use fresh releases :-)
>
> If there is anything I can help with ... just ping me and I'll be happy to
> help.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> Am 28.05.20, 13:18 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <pi...@gmail.com>:
>
> Hi Harbs,
>
> I would like to be a release manager as well, but using Chri's
> implementation which as far as I know is in place. I would like to use
> his
> mentioned 3 steps and see how much things I will have to do on my own
> to
> make release happen. I know that I will have to do that on Mac, cause
> there
> some Maven/Git/Jenkins related plugin which allows use Jenkins, but it
> prevents me from pushing artifacts from windows.
>
> I have some thoughts about above proposition, but I will wait till we
> all
> pass trough the release process.
>
> Thanks,
> Piotr
>
> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 11:06 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
> napisał(a):
>
> > Hi Harbs,
> >
> > makes sense.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > Thanks for you work helping with the 0.9.7 release as well.
> >
> > I’m definitely open to improving the structure and the process.
> >
> > My biggest hesitation is that I don’t understand the current
> release
> > process well enough. Until recently Alex was the only one who really
> > understood it. Yishay just went through the process so he has a good
> > understanding now. I plan on doing another release the week
> following next
> > (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope is that I will understand it
> better
> > at that point. I don’t know whether Greg Dove is willing to do a
> release,
> > but I think it would be very valuable to get his input as well.
> >
> > So my proposal is that we get some more of us familiar with the
> what
> > and the why of the current process. I want to understand what was
> done and
> > why it was done. I don’t feel comfortable having an opinion on
> changing
> > things until I can weigh the pros and cons. I’d like more of us to
> be in
> > the same position so we will be in the position of building
> consensus on
> > changes. The reason I hope that Greg Dove specifically does a
> release is
> > because I feel he’s pretty neutral on technology and I think he’ll
> have
> > good valuable input.
> >
> > So here’s my proposal:
> >
> > 1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3 releases in rapid succession
> > without making too many changes.
> > 2. Let’s try and get as many of us familiar with that process as
> > possible.
> > 3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss the pain points and what can
> be
> > done to improve the structure and/or the process with pros and cons.
> Maybe
> > your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe something else? Similar?
> Don’t
> > know, but I’d like to get to the point where we can have an
> intelligent
> > discussion on the topic with different points of view. I don’t think
> we’re
> > quite there yet.
> > 4. Carefully start implementing changes. Making big changes is
> often
> > disruptive and is often the cause of conflict. This is nothing
> specific to
> > us, and there’s even accepted advice on the topic. I suggest we all
> read
> > and follow James Duncan Davidson's “rules for revolutionaries”[1].
> >
> > I appreciate having your proposed changes to ponder the next
> couple of
> > weeks.
> >
> > In the meantime, please by all means, dive into Royale and create
> > issues, pull requests, let us know difficulties, etc. I’ll make my
> best
> > effort to be as responsive as possible and help where I can. If
> you’re
> > feeling frustration, please reach out to me on Slack.
> >
> > Does this make sense?
> > Harbs
> >
> > [1]http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries <
> > http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries>
> >
> > > On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Christofer Dutz <
> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > congrats to the successful release of 0.9.7 … it greatly
> simplified
> > the last PLC4X release to have the artifacts out there in the wild.
> > >
> > > I would really like to see Royale as the tool in my toolbox for
> > building industrial UI applications as I sort of am not that happy
> with the
> > other existing alternatives.
> > >
> > > In order to do this I know that I have some areas of expertise
> I can
> > offer to the project … Writing ActionScript and MXML code is
> definitely not
> > where I can help best.
> > >
> > > However I’m really good at Java, Maven and Apache
> Infrastructure. I
> > know that development is most active in the ASJS repo but I would be
> happy
> > to help on the other sides ... perhaps even help the automated
> testing in
> > the ASJS repo.
> > >
> > > I would have one proposal on how to really simplify things,
> but I
> > would be hesitant to start working on this before we have consensus
> on this
> > here.
> > > It would probably involve multiple weeks of full time work in
> total
> > to do it for me, but I would be happy to do it, if the project would
> accept
> > it in the end and you folks would be willing to help with the parts
> I’m not
> > too deep into (Ant-, NPM build adjustments). So that’s why I’m
> bringing
> > this up here first. I know it might question some unwritten project
> rules,
> > but I would kindly ask you to not just block the discussion and
> perhaps
> > help re-evaluating why they became “project rules” and if the
> assumptions
> > were correct or still apply.
> > >
> > > The benefit would be:
> > >
> > > * Less problems in getting set-up (just clone one repo)
> > > * Simpler release (Only need to release one repository … no
> > updating of version information in-between)
> > > * Less things that can go wrong (I remember when compiler
> was
> > already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest wasn’t yet … there were issues
> > discussed on the list)
> > > * I would use the opportunity to clean up some things in the
> > maven build, because despite the probably common assumption … I’m not
> > really happy with the usability of the maven build from a user’s
> > perspective … I think there’s great room for improvement
> > >
> > > In general I would propose to merge all 3 repositories into
> one.
> > Right now the Maven build would probably work with different
> releases of
> > the compiler or typedefs but from what I can see … the Ant release
> would
> > probably not work without modification. So the whole idea of
> releasing
> > separately seems to be more a theoretical one. I think in the
> history of
> > FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done once (please correct me if I’m
> > wrong). If there are external entities only interested in consuming
> parts
> > of the project, we could build source distribution for these that
> only
> > contain the parts they are interest in.
> > >
> > >
> > > * I propose to move the artifacts needed for the build but
> not
> > being part of the build (build-tools, jburg-types) into a separate
> > repository where they can be released independently and don’t cause
> > confusion like they are doing right now.
> > > * Then I would like to create a new repository (Let’s call
> it
> > “royale”) which contains 3 directories: compiler, typedefs and asjs
> (or
> > even with the current “royale-“ prefix, I don’t really care/mind).
> > > * Now comes the biggest block … I would need to completely
> > rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the core of it would be also moved
> to the
> > new build-tools repository. This plugin would sort of be an empty
> skeleton
> > to load compiler plugins. This is needed as Maven can’t build a
> project
> > where a plugin used in the project is also part of the build itself.
> So we
> > couldn’t build all-in-one go without this change.
> > > * Next step would be to add a new royale-parent pom in the
> new
> > root of the project, the 3 old parents would be updated to use the
> new
> > parent and a lot of duplicated configuration could be moved there,
> hereby
> > greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms.
> > >
> > > A migration plan, could be to :
> > >
> > > * create a feature-branch in all 3 repositories
> > > * create two new repos “royale” and “royale-build-tools” (or
> > whatever you want to name them)
> > > * Start with using git submodules to import the 3 branches
> into
> > the new (I know submodules really suck, but they would only be
> needed until
> > everything is finished)
> > > * I would move/copy the build tools to the new repo and
> start
> > working on the new maven plugin
> > > * Then I would need to update the old compiler repo to
> produce
> > something I can use as royale-maven-plugin plugins
> > > * After that’s done I would update the typedefs to use the
> new
> > plugin
> > > * After that’s done I would update the asjs repo to use the
> new
> > plugin
> > > * Then I would add the new royale-parent pom
> > > * After that’s done I would simplify and deduplicate the
> > configuration
> > > * Now I would definitely need some help with adjusting the
> Ant
> > and possibly NPM build to these changes (Most of them should be
> > profile-names and maybe directory names or paths)
> > > * The last thing that would be required to be done now
> would be
> > to remove the submodules in the “royale” repository and to import
> the real
> > repos
> > > * After this the 3 old repos could be archived
> > >
> > > I am really looking forward to some open discussion on this.
> > >
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>
>
--
Piotr Zarzycki
Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Posted by Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>.
Chris,
I think I would like to be after Harbs and eventually Greg. Yes you can
send me a link, write a document with absolutely EVERY step which I have to
do in order to get release done. Even if you think that I know some steps
like signing - you can in such places point into some existing document.
I would like to be able to comment on every step to confront if I really
for example had to copy/paste some command or just opposite I had to do
much more than only copy/paste.
Thanks,
Piotr
czw., 28 maj 2020 o 13:27 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
napisał(a):
> Hi Piotr,
>
> we could change the configuration to use the jgit plugin on the CI machine
> and to use the default on local machines.
> In that case you could do it on any machine you want (also windows)
>
> Who does releases in which order using which tooling ... I don't really
> care ...
>
> I'm just happy that there's a line building up of people wanting to do so
> and I get to use fresh releases :-)
>
> If there is anything I can help with ... just ping me and I'll be happy to
> help.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> Am 28.05.20, 13:18 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <pi...@gmail.com>:
>
> Hi Harbs,
>
> I would like to be a release manager as well, but using Chri's
> implementation which as far as I know is in place. I would like to use
> his
> mentioned 3 steps and see how much things I will have to do on my own
> to
> make release happen. I know that I will have to do that on Mac, cause
> there
> some Maven/Git/Jenkins related plugin which allows use Jenkins, but it
> prevents me from pushing artifacts from windows.
>
> I have some thoughts about above proposition, but I will wait till we
> all
> pass trough the release process.
>
> Thanks,
> Piotr
>
> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 11:06 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
> napisał(a):
>
> > Hi Harbs,
> >
> > makes sense.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > Thanks for you work helping with the 0.9.7 release as well.
> >
> > I’m definitely open to improving the structure and the process.
> >
> > My biggest hesitation is that I don’t understand the current
> release
> > process well enough. Until recently Alex was the only one who really
> > understood it. Yishay just went through the process so he has a good
> > understanding now. I plan on doing another release the week
> following next
> > (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope is that I will understand it
> better
> > at that point. I don’t know whether Greg Dove is willing to do a
> release,
> > but I think it would be very valuable to get his input as well.
> >
> > So my proposal is that we get some more of us familiar with the
> what
> > and the why of the current process. I want to understand what was
> done and
> > why it was done. I don’t feel comfortable having an opinion on
> changing
> > things until I can weigh the pros and cons. I’d like more of us to
> be in
> > the same position so we will be in the position of building
> consensus on
> > changes. The reason I hope that Greg Dove specifically does a
> release is
> > because I feel he’s pretty neutral on technology and I think he’ll
> have
> > good valuable input.
> >
> > So here’s my proposal:
> >
> > 1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3 releases in rapid succession
> > without making too many changes.
> > 2. Let’s try and get as many of us familiar with that process as
> > possible.
> > 3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss the pain points and what can
> be
> > done to improve the structure and/or the process with pros and cons.
> Maybe
> > your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe something else? Similar?
> Don’t
> > know, but I’d like to get to the point where we can have an
> intelligent
> > discussion on the topic with different points of view. I don’t think
> we’re
> > quite there yet.
> > 4. Carefully start implementing changes. Making big changes is
> often
> > disruptive and is often the cause of conflict. This is nothing
> specific to
> > us, and there’s even accepted advice on the topic. I suggest we all
> read
> > and follow James Duncan Davidson's “rules for revolutionaries”[1].
> >
> > I appreciate having your proposed changes to ponder the next
> couple of
> > weeks.
> >
> > In the meantime, please by all means, dive into Royale and create
> > issues, pull requests, let us know difficulties, etc. I’ll make my
> best
> > effort to be as responsive as possible and help where I can. If
> you’re
> > feeling frustration, please reach out to me on Slack.
> >
> > Does this make sense?
> > Harbs
> >
> > [1]http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries <
> > http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries>
> >
> > > On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Christofer Dutz <
> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > congrats to the successful release of 0.9.7 … it greatly
> simplified
> > the last PLC4X release to have the artifacts out there in the wild.
> > >
> > > I would really like to see Royale as the tool in my toolbox for
> > building industrial UI applications as I sort of am not that happy
> with the
> > other existing alternatives.
> > >
> > > In order to do this I know that I have some areas of expertise
> I can
> > offer to the project … Writing ActionScript and MXML code is
> definitely not
> > where I can help best.
> > >
> > > However I’m really good at Java, Maven and Apache
> Infrastructure. I
> > know that development is most active in the ASJS repo but I would be
> happy
> > to help on the other sides ... perhaps even help the automated
> testing in
> > the ASJS repo.
> > >
> > > I would have one proposal on how to really simplify things,
> but I
> > would be hesitant to start working on this before we have consensus
> on this
> > here.
> > > It would probably involve multiple weeks of full time work in
> total
> > to do it for me, but I would be happy to do it, if the project would
> accept
> > it in the end and you folks would be willing to help with the parts
> I’m not
> > too deep into (Ant-, NPM build adjustments). So that’s why I’m
> bringing
> > this up here first. I know it might question some unwritten project
> rules,
> > but I would kindly ask you to not just block the discussion and
> perhaps
> > help re-evaluating why they became “project rules” and if the
> assumptions
> > were correct or still apply.
> > >
> > > The benefit would be:
> > >
> > > * Less problems in getting set-up (just clone one repo)
> > > * Simpler release (Only need to release one repository … no
> > updating of version information in-between)
> > > * Less things that can go wrong (I remember when compiler
> was
> > already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest wasn’t yet … there were issues
> > discussed on the list)
> > > * I would use the opportunity to clean up some things in the
> > maven build, because despite the probably common assumption … I’m not
> > really happy with the usability of the maven build from a user’s
> > perspective … I think there’s great room for improvement
> > >
> > > In general I would propose to merge all 3 repositories into
> one.
> > Right now the Maven build would probably work with different
> releases of
> > the compiler or typedefs but from what I can see … the Ant release
> would
> > probably not work without modification. So the whole idea of
> releasing
> > separately seems to be more a theoretical one. I think in the
> history of
> > FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done once (please correct me if I’m
> > wrong). If there are external entities only interested in consuming
> parts
> > of the project, we could build source distribution for these that
> only
> > contain the parts they are interest in.
> > >
> > >
> > > * I propose to move the artifacts needed for the build but
> not
> > being part of the build (build-tools, jburg-types) into a separate
> > repository where they can be released independently and don’t cause
> > confusion like they are doing right now.
> > > * Then I would like to create a new repository (Let’s call
> it
> > “royale”) which contains 3 directories: compiler, typedefs and asjs
> (or
> > even with the current “royale-“ prefix, I don’t really care/mind).
> > > * Now comes the biggest block … I would need to completely
> > rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the core of it would be also moved
> to the
> > new build-tools repository. This plugin would sort of be an empty
> skeleton
> > to load compiler plugins. This is needed as Maven can’t build a
> project
> > where a plugin used in the project is also part of the build itself.
> So we
> > couldn’t build all-in-one go without this change.
> > > * Next step would be to add a new royale-parent pom in the
> new
> > root of the project, the 3 old parents would be updated to use the
> new
> > parent and a lot of duplicated configuration could be moved there,
> hereby
> > greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms.
> > >
> > > A migration plan, could be to :
> > >
> > > * create a feature-branch in all 3 repositories
> > > * create two new repos “royale” and “royale-build-tools” (or
> > whatever you want to name them)
> > > * Start with using git submodules to import the 3 branches
> into
> > the new (I know submodules really suck, but they would only be
> needed until
> > everything is finished)
> > > * I would move/copy the build tools to the new repo and
> start
> > working on the new maven plugin
> > > * Then I would need to update the old compiler repo to
> produce
> > something I can use as royale-maven-plugin plugins
> > > * After that’s done I would update the typedefs to use the
> new
> > plugin
> > > * After that’s done I would update the asjs repo to use the
> new
> > plugin
> > > * Then I would add the new royale-parent pom
> > > * After that’s done I would simplify and deduplicate the
> > configuration
> > > * Now I would definitely need some help with adjusting the
> Ant
> > and possibly NPM build to these changes (Most of them should be
> > profile-names and maybe directory names or paths)
> > > * The last thing that would be required to be done now
> would be
> > to remove the submodules in the “royale” repository and to import
> the real
> > repos
> > > * After this the 3 old repos could be archived
> > >
> > > I am really looking forward to some open discussion on this.
> > >
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>
>
--
Piotr Zarzycki
Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
Hi Piotr,
we could change the configuration to use the jgit plugin on the CI machine and to use the default on local machines.
In that case you could do it on any machine you want (also windows)
Who does releases in which order using which tooling ... I don't really care ...
I'm just happy that there's a line building up of people wanting to do so and I get to use fresh releases :-)
If there is anything I can help with ... just ping me and I'll be happy to help.
Chris
Am 28.05.20, 13:18 schrieb "Piotr Zarzycki" <pi...@gmail.com>:
Hi Harbs,
I would like to be a release manager as well, but using Chri's
implementation which as far as I know is in place. I would like to use his
mentioned 3 steps and see how much things I will have to do on my own to
make release happen. I know that I will have to do that on Mac, cause there
some Maven/Git/Jenkins related plugin which allows use Jenkins, but it
prevents me from pushing artifacts from windows.
I have some thoughts about above proposition, but I will wait till we all
pass trough the release process.
Thanks,
Piotr
czw., 28 maj 2020 o 11:06 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
napisał(a):
> Hi Harbs,
>
> makes sense.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> Thanks for you work helping with the 0.9.7 release as well.
>
> I’m definitely open to improving the structure and the process.
>
> My biggest hesitation is that I don’t understand the current release
> process well enough. Until recently Alex was the only one who really
> understood it. Yishay just went through the process so he has a good
> understanding now. I plan on doing another release the week following next
> (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope is that I will understand it better
> at that point. I don’t know whether Greg Dove is willing to do a release,
> but I think it would be very valuable to get his input as well.
>
> So my proposal is that we get some more of us familiar with the what
> and the why of the current process. I want to understand what was done and
> why it was done. I don’t feel comfortable having an opinion on changing
> things until I can weigh the pros and cons. I’d like more of us to be in
> the same position so we will be in the position of building consensus on
> changes. The reason I hope that Greg Dove specifically does a release is
> because I feel he’s pretty neutral on technology and I think he’ll have
> good valuable input.
>
> So here’s my proposal:
>
> 1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3 releases in rapid succession
> without making too many changes.
> 2. Let’s try and get as many of us familiar with that process as
> possible.
> 3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss the pain points and what can be
> done to improve the structure and/or the process with pros and cons. Maybe
> your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe something else? Similar? Don’t
> know, but I’d like to get to the point where we can have an intelligent
> discussion on the topic with different points of view. I don’t think we’re
> quite there yet.
> 4. Carefully start implementing changes. Making big changes is often
> disruptive and is often the cause of conflict. This is nothing specific to
> us, and there’s even accepted advice on the topic. I suggest we all read
> and follow James Duncan Davidson's “rules for revolutionaries”[1].
>
> I appreciate having your proposed changes to ponder the next couple of
> weeks.
>
> In the meantime, please by all means, dive into Royale and create
> issues, pull requests, let us know difficulties, etc. I’ll make my best
> effort to be as responsive as possible and help where I can. If you’re
> feeling frustration, please reach out to me on Slack.
>
> Does this make sense?
> Harbs
>
> [1]http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries <
> http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries>
>
> > On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > congrats to the successful release of 0.9.7 … it greatly simplified
> the last PLC4X release to have the artifacts out there in the wild.
> >
> > I would really like to see Royale as the tool in my toolbox for
> building industrial UI applications as I sort of am not that happy with the
> other existing alternatives.
> >
> > In order to do this I know that I have some areas of expertise I can
> offer to the project … Writing ActionScript and MXML code is definitely not
> where I can help best.
> >
> > However I’m really good at Java, Maven and Apache Infrastructure. I
> know that development is most active in the ASJS repo but I would be happy
> to help on the other sides ... perhaps even help the automated testing in
> the ASJS repo.
> >
> > I would have one proposal on how to really simplify things, but I
> would be hesitant to start working on this before we have consensus on this
> here.
> > It would probably involve multiple weeks of full time work in total
> to do it for me, but I would be happy to do it, if the project would accept
> it in the end and you folks would be willing to help with the parts I’m not
> too deep into (Ant-, NPM build adjustments). So that’s why I’m bringing
> this up here first. I know it might question some unwritten project rules,
> but I would kindly ask you to not just block the discussion and perhaps
> help re-evaluating why they became “project rules” and if the assumptions
> were correct or still apply.
> >
> > The benefit would be:
> >
> > * Less problems in getting set-up (just clone one repo)
> > * Simpler release (Only need to release one repository … no
> updating of version information in-between)
> > * Less things that can go wrong (I remember when compiler was
> already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest wasn’t yet … there were issues
> discussed on the list)
> > * I would use the opportunity to clean up some things in the
> maven build, because despite the probably common assumption … I’m not
> really happy with the usability of the maven build from a user’s
> perspective … I think there’s great room for improvement
> >
> > In general I would propose to merge all 3 repositories into one.
> Right now the Maven build would probably work with different releases of
> the compiler or typedefs but from what I can see … the Ant release would
> probably not work without modification. So the whole idea of releasing
> separately seems to be more a theoretical one. I think in the history of
> FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done once (please correct me if I’m
> wrong). If there are external entities only interested in consuming parts
> of the project, we could build source distribution for these that only
> contain the parts they are interest in.
> >
> >
> > * I propose to move the artifacts needed for the build but not
> being part of the build (build-tools, jburg-types) into a separate
> repository where they can be released independently and don’t cause
> confusion like they are doing right now.
> > * Then I would like to create a new repository (Let’s call it
> “royale”) which contains 3 directories: compiler, typedefs and asjs (or
> even with the current “royale-“ prefix, I don’t really care/mind).
> > * Now comes the biggest block … I would need to completely
> rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the core of it would be also moved to the
> new build-tools repository. This plugin would sort of be an empty skeleton
> to load compiler plugins. This is needed as Maven can’t build a project
> where a plugin used in the project is also part of the build itself. So we
> couldn’t build all-in-one go without this change.
> > * Next step would be to add a new royale-parent pom in the new
> root of the project, the 3 old parents would be updated to use the new
> parent and a lot of duplicated configuration could be moved there, hereby
> greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms.
> >
> > A migration plan, could be to :
> >
> > * create a feature-branch in all 3 repositories
> > * create two new repos “royale” and “royale-build-tools” (or
> whatever you want to name them)
> > * Start with using git submodules to import the 3 branches into
> the new (I know submodules really suck, but they would only be needed until
> everything is finished)
> > * I would move/copy the build tools to the new repo and start
> working on the new maven plugin
> > * Then I would need to update the old compiler repo to produce
> something I can use as royale-maven-plugin plugins
> > * After that’s done I would update the typedefs to use the new
> plugin
> > * After that’s done I would update the asjs repo to use the new
> plugin
> > * Then I would add the new royale-parent pom
> > * After that’s done I would simplify and deduplicate the
> configuration
> > * Now I would definitely need some help with adjusting the Ant
> and possibly NPM build to these changes (Most of them should be
> profile-names and maybe directory names or paths)
> > * The last thing that would be required to be done now would be
> to remove the submodules in the “royale” repository and to import the real
> repos
> > * After this the 3 old repos could be archived
> >
> > I am really looking forward to some open discussion on this.
> >
> >
> > Chris
> >
>
>
>
--
Piotr Zarzycki
Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Posted by Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>.
Hi Harbs,
I would like to be a release manager as well, but using Chri's
implementation which as far as I know is in place. I would like to use his
mentioned 3 steps and see how much things I will have to do on my own to
make release happen. I know that I will have to do that on Mac, cause there
some Maven/Git/Jenkins related plugin which allows use Jenkins, but it
prevents me from pushing artifacts from windows.
I have some thoughts about above proposition, but I will wait till we all
pass trough the release process.
Thanks,
Piotr
czw., 28 maj 2020 o 11:06 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
napisał(a):
> Hi Harbs,
>
> makes sense.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> Thanks for you work helping with the 0.9.7 release as well.
>
> I’m definitely open to improving the structure and the process.
>
> My biggest hesitation is that I don’t understand the current release
> process well enough. Until recently Alex was the only one who really
> understood it. Yishay just went through the process so he has a good
> understanding now. I plan on doing another release the week following next
> (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope is that I will understand it better
> at that point. I don’t know whether Greg Dove is willing to do a release,
> but I think it would be very valuable to get his input as well.
>
> So my proposal is that we get some more of us familiar with the what
> and the why of the current process. I want to understand what was done and
> why it was done. I don’t feel comfortable having an opinion on changing
> things until I can weigh the pros and cons. I’d like more of us to be in
> the same position so we will be in the position of building consensus on
> changes. The reason I hope that Greg Dove specifically does a release is
> because I feel he’s pretty neutral on technology and I think he’ll have
> good valuable input.
>
> So here’s my proposal:
>
> 1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3 releases in rapid succession
> without making too many changes.
> 2. Let’s try and get as many of us familiar with that process as
> possible.
> 3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss the pain points and what can be
> done to improve the structure and/or the process with pros and cons. Maybe
> your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe something else? Similar? Don’t
> know, but I’d like to get to the point where we can have an intelligent
> discussion on the topic with different points of view. I don’t think we’re
> quite there yet.
> 4. Carefully start implementing changes. Making big changes is often
> disruptive and is often the cause of conflict. This is nothing specific to
> us, and there’s even accepted advice on the topic. I suggest we all read
> and follow James Duncan Davidson's “rules for revolutionaries”[1].
>
> I appreciate having your proposed changes to ponder the next couple of
> weeks.
>
> In the meantime, please by all means, dive into Royale and create
> issues, pull requests, let us know difficulties, etc. I’ll make my best
> effort to be as responsive as possible and help where I can. If you’re
> feeling frustration, please reach out to me on Slack.
>
> Does this make sense?
> Harbs
>
> [1]http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries <
> http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries>
>
> > On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > congrats to the successful release of 0.9.7 … it greatly simplified
> the last PLC4X release to have the artifacts out there in the wild.
> >
> > I would really like to see Royale as the tool in my toolbox for
> building industrial UI applications as I sort of am not that happy with the
> other existing alternatives.
> >
> > In order to do this I know that I have some areas of expertise I can
> offer to the project … Writing ActionScript and MXML code is definitely not
> where I can help best.
> >
> > However I’m really good at Java, Maven and Apache Infrastructure. I
> know that development is most active in the ASJS repo but I would be happy
> to help on the other sides ... perhaps even help the automated testing in
> the ASJS repo.
> >
> > I would have one proposal on how to really simplify things, but I
> would be hesitant to start working on this before we have consensus on this
> here.
> > It would probably involve multiple weeks of full time work in total
> to do it for me, but I would be happy to do it, if the project would accept
> it in the end and you folks would be willing to help with the parts I’m not
> too deep into (Ant-, NPM build adjustments). So that’s why I’m bringing
> this up here first. I know it might question some unwritten project rules,
> but I would kindly ask you to not just block the discussion and perhaps
> help re-evaluating why they became “project rules” and if the assumptions
> were correct or still apply.
> >
> > The benefit would be:
> >
> > * Less problems in getting set-up (just clone one repo)
> > * Simpler release (Only need to release one repository … no
> updating of version information in-between)
> > * Less things that can go wrong (I remember when compiler was
> already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest wasn’t yet … there were issues
> discussed on the list)
> > * I would use the opportunity to clean up some things in the
> maven build, because despite the probably common assumption … I’m not
> really happy with the usability of the maven build from a user’s
> perspective … I think there’s great room for improvement
> >
> > In general I would propose to merge all 3 repositories into one.
> Right now the Maven build would probably work with different releases of
> the compiler or typedefs but from what I can see … the Ant release would
> probably not work without modification. So the whole idea of releasing
> separately seems to be more a theoretical one. I think in the history of
> FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done once (please correct me if I’m
> wrong). If there are external entities only interested in consuming parts
> of the project, we could build source distribution for these that only
> contain the parts they are interest in.
> >
> >
> > * I propose to move the artifacts needed for the build but not
> being part of the build (build-tools, jburg-types) into a separate
> repository where they can be released independently and don’t cause
> confusion like they are doing right now.
> > * Then I would like to create a new repository (Let’s call it
> “royale”) which contains 3 directories: compiler, typedefs and asjs (or
> even with the current “royale-“ prefix, I don’t really care/mind).
> > * Now comes the biggest block … I would need to completely
> rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the core of it would be also moved to the
> new build-tools repository. This plugin would sort of be an empty skeleton
> to load compiler plugins. This is needed as Maven can’t build a project
> where a plugin used in the project is also part of the build itself. So we
> couldn’t build all-in-one go without this change.
> > * Next step would be to add a new royale-parent pom in the new
> root of the project, the 3 old parents would be updated to use the new
> parent and a lot of duplicated configuration could be moved there, hereby
> greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms.
> >
> > A migration plan, could be to :
> >
> > * create a feature-branch in all 3 repositories
> > * create two new repos “royale” and “royale-build-tools” (or
> whatever you want to name them)
> > * Start with using git submodules to import the 3 branches into
> the new (I know submodules really suck, but they would only be needed until
> everything is finished)
> > * I would move/copy the build tools to the new repo and start
> working on the new maven plugin
> > * Then I would need to update the old compiler repo to produce
> something I can use as royale-maven-plugin plugins
> > * After that’s done I would update the typedefs to use the new
> plugin
> > * After that’s done I would update the asjs repo to use the new
> plugin
> > * Then I would add the new royale-parent pom
> > * After that’s done I would simplify and deduplicate the
> configuration
> > * Now I would definitely need some help with adjusting the Ant
> and possibly NPM build to these changes (Most of them should be
> profile-names and maybe directory names or paths)
> > * The last thing that would be required to be done now would be
> to remove the submodules in the “royale” repository and to import the real
> repos
> > * After this the 3 old repos could be archived
> >
> > I am really looking forward to some open discussion on this.
> >
> >
> > Chris
> >
>
>
>
--
Piotr Zarzycki
Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
Hi Harbs,
makes sense.
Chris
Am 28.05.20, 10:48 schrieb "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com>:
Hi Chris,
Thanks for you work helping with the 0.9.7 release as well.
I’m definitely open to improving the structure and the process.
My biggest hesitation is that I don’t understand the current release process well enough. Until recently Alex was the only one who really understood it. Yishay just went through the process so he has a good understanding now. I plan on doing another release the week following next (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope is that I will understand it better at that point. I don’t know whether Greg Dove is willing to do a release, but I think it would be very valuable to get his input as well.
So my proposal is that we get some more of us familiar with the what and the why of the current process. I want to understand what was done and why it was done. I don’t feel comfortable having an opinion on changing things until I can weigh the pros and cons. I’d like more of us to be in the same position so we will be in the position of building consensus on changes. The reason I hope that Greg Dove specifically does a release is because I feel he’s pretty neutral on technology and I think he’ll have good valuable input.
So here’s my proposal:
1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3 releases in rapid succession without making too many changes.
2. Let’s try and get as many of us familiar with that process as possible.
3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss the pain points and what can be done to improve the structure and/or the process with pros and cons. Maybe your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe something else? Similar? Don’t know, but I’d like to get to the point where we can have an intelligent discussion on the topic with different points of view. I don’t think we’re quite there yet.
4. Carefully start implementing changes. Making big changes is often disruptive and is often the cause of conflict. This is nothing specific to us, and there’s even accepted advice on the topic. I suggest we all read and follow James Duncan Davidson's “rules for revolutionaries”[1].
I appreciate having your proposed changes to ponder the next couple of weeks.
In the meantime, please by all means, dive into Royale and create issues, pull requests, let us know difficulties, etc. I’ll make my best effort to be as responsive as possible and help where I can. If you’re feeling frustration, please reach out to me on Slack.
Does this make sense?
Harbs
[1]http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries <http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries>
> On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> congrats to the successful release of 0.9.7 … it greatly simplified the last PLC4X release to have the artifacts out there in the wild.
>
> I would really like to see Royale as the tool in my toolbox for building industrial UI applications as I sort of am not that happy with the other existing alternatives.
>
> In order to do this I know that I have some areas of expertise I can offer to the project … Writing ActionScript and MXML code is definitely not where I can help best.
>
> However I’m really good at Java, Maven and Apache Infrastructure. I know that development is most active in the ASJS repo but I would be happy to help on the other sides ... perhaps even help the automated testing in the ASJS repo.
>
> I would have one proposal on how to really simplify things, but I would be hesitant to start working on this before we have consensus on this here.
> It would probably involve multiple weeks of full time work in total to do it for me, but I would be happy to do it, if the project would accept it in the end and you folks would be willing to help with the parts I’m not too deep into (Ant-, NPM build adjustments). So that’s why I’m bringing this up here first. I know it might question some unwritten project rules, but I would kindly ask you to not just block the discussion and perhaps help re-evaluating why they became “project rules” and if the assumptions were correct or still apply.
>
> The benefit would be:
>
> * Less problems in getting set-up (just clone one repo)
> * Simpler release (Only need to release one repository … no updating of version information in-between)
> * Less things that can go wrong (I remember when compiler was already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest wasn’t yet … there were issues discussed on the list)
> * I would use the opportunity to clean up some things in the maven build, because despite the probably common assumption … I’m not really happy with the usability of the maven build from a user’s perspective … I think there’s great room for improvement
>
> In general I would propose to merge all 3 repositories into one. Right now the Maven build would probably work with different releases of the compiler or typedefs but from what I can see … the Ant release would probably not work without modification. So the whole idea of releasing separately seems to be more a theoretical one. I think in the history of FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done once (please correct me if I’m wrong). If there are external entities only interested in consuming parts of the project, we could build source distribution for these that only contain the parts they are interest in.
>
>
> * I propose to move the artifacts needed for the build but not being part of the build (build-tools, jburg-types) into a separate repository where they can be released independently and don’t cause confusion like they are doing right now.
> * Then I would like to create a new repository (Let’s call it “royale”) which contains 3 directories: compiler, typedefs and asjs (or even with the current “royale-“ prefix, I don’t really care/mind).
> * Now comes the biggest block … I would need to completely rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the core of it would be also moved to the new build-tools repository. This plugin would sort of be an empty skeleton to load compiler plugins. This is needed as Maven can’t build a project where a plugin used in the project is also part of the build itself. So we couldn’t build all-in-one go without this change.
> * Next step would be to add a new royale-parent pom in the new root of the project, the 3 old parents would be updated to use the new parent and a lot of duplicated configuration could be moved there, hereby greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms.
>
> A migration plan, could be to :
>
> * create a feature-branch in all 3 repositories
> * create two new repos “royale” and “royale-build-tools” (or whatever you want to name them)
> * Start with using git submodules to import the 3 branches into the new (I know submodules really suck, but they would only be needed until everything is finished)
> * I would move/copy the build tools to the new repo and start working on the new maven plugin
> * Then I would need to update the old compiler repo to produce something I can use as royale-maven-plugin plugins
> * After that’s done I would update the typedefs to use the new plugin
> * After that’s done I would update the asjs repo to use the new plugin
> * Then I would add the new royale-parent pom
> * After that’s done I would simplify and deduplicate the configuration
> * Now I would definitely need some help with adjusting the Ant and possibly NPM build to these changes (Most of them should be profile-names and maybe directory names or paths)
> * The last thing that would be required to be done now would be to remove the submodules in the “royale” repository and to import the real repos
> * After this the 3 old repos could be archived
>
> I am really looking forward to some open discussion on this.
>
>
> Chris
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] How to continue to simplify things?
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
Hi Chris,
Thanks for you work helping with the 0.9.7 release as well.
I’m definitely open to improving the structure and the process.
My biggest hesitation is that I don’t understand the current release process well enough. Until recently Alex was the only one who really understood it. Yishay just went through the process so he has a good understanding now. I plan on doing another release the week following next (i.e. starting June 7 or so). My hope is that I will understand it better at that point. I don’t know whether Greg Dove is willing to do a release, but I think it would be very valuable to get his input as well.
So my proposal is that we get some more of us familiar with the what and the why of the current process. I want to understand what was done and why it was done. I don’t feel comfortable having an opinion on changing things until I can weigh the pros and cons. I’d like more of us to be in the same position so we will be in the position of building consensus on changes. The reason I hope that Greg Dove specifically does a release is because I feel he’s pretty neutral on technology and I think he’ll have good valuable input.
So here’s my proposal:
1. Let’s work on doing another 2-3 releases in rapid succession without making too many changes.
2. Let’s try and get as many of us familiar with that process as possible.
3. Once that’s done, let’s discuss the pain points and what can be done to improve the structure and/or the process with pros and cons. Maybe your suggestion is the way to go? Maybe something else? Similar? Don’t know, but I’d like to get to the point where we can have an intelligent discussion on the topic with different points of view. I don’t think we’re quite there yet.
4. Carefully start implementing changes. Making big changes is often disruptive and is often the cause of conflict. This is nothing specific to us, and there’s even accepted advice on the topic. I suggest we all read and follow James Duncan Davidson's “rules for revolutionaries”[1].
I appreciate having your proposed changes to ponder the next couple of weeks.
In the meantime, please by all means, dive into Royale and create issues, pull requests, let us know difficulties, etc. I’ll make my best effort to be as responsive as possible and help where I can. If you’re feeling frustration, please reach out to me on Slack.
Does this make sense?
Harbs
[1]http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries <http://s.apache.org/rules_for_revolutionaries>
> On May 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> congrats to the successful release of 0.9.7 … it greatly simplified the last PLC4X release to have the artifacts out there in the wild.
>
> I would really like to see Royale as the tool in my toolbox for building industrial UI applications as I sort of am not that happy with the other existing alternatives.
>
> In order to do this I know that I have some areas of expertise I can offer to the project … Writing ActionScript and MXML code is definitely not where I can help best.
>
> However I’m really good at Java, Maven and Apache Infrastructure. I know that development is most active in the ASJS repo but I would be happy to help on the other sides ... perhaps even help the automated testing in the ASJS repo.
>
> I would have one proposal on how to really simplify things, but I would be hesitant to start working on this before we have consensus on this here.
> It would probably involve multiple weeks of full time work in total to do it for me, but I would be happy to do it, if the project would accept it in the end and you folks would be willing to help with the parts I’m not too deep into (Ant-, NPM build adjustments). So that’s why I’m bringing this up here first. I know it might question some unwritten project rules, but I would kindly ask you to not just block the discussion and perhaps help re-evaluating why they became “project rules” and if the assumptions were correct or still apply.
>
> The benefit would be:
>
> * Less problems in getting set-up (just clone one repo)
> * Simpler release (Only need to release one repository … no updating of version information in-between)
> * Less things that can go wrong (I remember when compiler was already in 0.9.8-SNAPSHOT but the rest wasn’t yet … there were issues discussed on the list)
> * I would use the opportunity to clean up some things in the maven build, because despite the probably common assumption … I’m not really happy with the usability of the maven build from a user’s perspective … I think there’s great room for improvement
>
> In general I would propose to merge all 3 repositories into one. Right now the Maven build would probably work with different releases of the compiler or typedefs but from what I can see … the Ant release would probably not work without modification. So the whole idea of releasing separately seems to be more a theoretical one. I think in the history of FlexJS and Royale it hasn’t been done once (please correct me if I’m wrong). If there are external entities only interested in consuming parts of the project, we could build source distribution for these that only contain the parts they are interest in.
>
>
> * I propose to move the artifacts needed for the build but not being part of the build (build-tools, jburg-types) into a separate repository where they can be released independently and don’t cause confusion like they are doing right now.
> * Then I would like to create a new repository (Let’s call it “royale”) which contains 3 directories: compiler, typedefs and asjs (or even with the current “royale-“ prefix, I don’t really care/mind).
> * Now comes the biggest block … I would need to completely rewrite the royale-maven-plugin … the core of it would be also moved to the new build-tools repository. This plugin would sort of be an empty skeleton to load compiler plugins. This is needed as Maven can’t build a project where a plugin used in the project is also part of the build itself. So we couldn’t build all-in-one go without this change.
> * Next step would be to add a new royale-parent pom in the new root of the project, the 3 old parents would be updated to use the new parent and a lot of duplicated configuration could be moved there, hereby greatly simplifying the 3 old root poms.
>
> A migration plan, could be to :
>
> * create a feature-branch in all 3 repositories
> * create two new repos “royale” and “royale-build-tools” (or whatever you want to name them)
> * Start with using git submodules to import the 3 branches into the new (I know submodules really suck, but they would only be needed until everything is finished)
> * I would move/copy the build tools to the new repo and start working on the new maven plugin
> * Then I would need to update the old compiler repo to produce something I can use as royale-maven-plugin plugins
> * After that’s done I would update the typedefs to use the new plugin
> * After that’s done I would update the asjs repo to use the new plugin
> * Then I would add the new royale-parent pom
> * After that’s done I would simplify and deduplicate the configuration
> * Now I would definitely need some help with adjusting the Ant and possibly NPM build to these changes (Most of them should be profile-names and maybe directory names or paths)
> * The last thing that would be required to be done now would be to remove the submodules in the “royale” repository and to import the real repos
> * After this the 3 old repos could be archived
>
> I am really looking forward to some open discussion on this.
>
>
> Chris
>