Re: [DISCUSS] Build on Windows

[Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>]

I think there's a whole host of cool things we could do with docker, but my
docker skills are not so good so it's hard for me to say how easy it is to
do things with it.

Anyone know what the Windows workflow would look like for using Docker for
the build? I think there are a couple use cases:

1. Modify code with the intent to submit a PR
2. Build to manually test the artifacts of a development version

Seems like, in the first case, you could be on windows, modify some code,
build with docker to validate you didn't break stuff and submit a PR. In
the second case, you could -DskipTests and get a build without too much
trouble on windows (unless i'm forgetting that thing go bad there too
though I think that we can at a minimum try to guarantee that we don't
break: mvn clean install -DskipTests on windows).  Of course, that won't
help if you're attempting to use GLV artifacts as they won't natively build
on windows since we won't support that. In that case, you'd have to fall
back to docker and get the artifacts somehow??





On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Robert Dale <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry if I'm starting to get off topic, but I also think the docker build
> should be used as part of the release process.  This would ensure a
> clean-room build environment that would not be tainted by a developer's
> local environment which may have rogue maven or other artifacts. One word:
> repeatable.
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Robert Dale <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > To elaborate a little more, when the --docs option is selected, an ssh
> > server (among other things) is started and a process is left running
> which
> > keeps the docker image running and accessible.  It would be great if that
> > could be a separate build option.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Robert Dale <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I've been meaning to open a ticket to add some options to the build.sh
> or
> >> pass options to docker. AFAICT, the docker build is hard coded with --rm
> >> which removes the docker instance when complete. If that's removed then
> the
> >> instance remains, can be attached to, and files extracted. I believe
> local
> >> filesystems can be mounted as well and shared that way. I'm no docker
> >> expert so perhaps there are alternatives already available.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Stephen Mallette <spmallette@gmail.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> ah - good point. i don't know anything about that. i assume that is
> >>> possible somehow?
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Jason Plurad <pl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > The question is whether the distribution zip files generated during
> the
> >>> > build on docker image can be transferred onto your Windows filesystem
> >>> for
> >>> > local testing.
> >>> >
> >>> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Stephen Mallette <
> >>> spmallette@gmail.com>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > We have this issue open:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1179
> >>> > >
> >>> > > which is about AppVeyor and running a windows build. It hasn't
> moved
> >>> much
> >>> > > recently and Apache Infra (i assume) has disabled the AppVeyor
> >>> > integration
> >>> > > (which in my book is fine b/c most of the time it ended with a red
> >>> "X" on
> >>> > > pull requests). So, the question is, do we care about AppVeyor and
> >>> > > supporting a Windows build?
> >>> > >
> >>> > > For me, i'd say "no" on both (in which case i'd just close this
> >>> ticket).
> >>> > > Some reasons:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > 1. I think that there aren't enough core developers working on
> >>> Windows to
> >>> > > warrant the added effort of trying to maintain a Windows build.
> >>> > > 2. The complexity of the build will increase with each GLV and it
> >>> will be
> >>> > > hard enough trying to keep that sane without Windows.
> >>> > > 3. Doc generation system is bound to shell environments
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Couldn't Windows users fall back to docker for their builds? Seems
> >>> like
> >>> > it
> >>> > > would be easier to maintain a docker/build.bat than it would to try
> >>> to
> >>> > make
> >>> > > everything else we have work on windows? thoughts?
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Robert Dale
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Robert Dale
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Robert Dale
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Build on Windows

[Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>]

There clearly aren't many Windows fans on this list.:) If no one has
suggestions for how this might work I think it further proves the point
that there isn't much need to try to support a Windows build. Unless there
are objections in the next 72 hours (Monday, September 12, 2016 at 9AM
EST), I'm going to assume lazy consensus and close:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1179

and remove the appveyor.yaml. I don't think we should be closed off to
having a windows build, but we need someone who is going to take charge of
it, make it happen and then maintain it.



On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I think there's a whole host of cool things we could do with docker, but
> my docker skills are not so good so it's hard for me to say how easy it is
> to do things with it.
>
> Anyone know what the Windows workflow would look like for using Docker for
> the build? I think there are a couple use cases:
>
> 1. Modify code with the intent to submit a PR
> 2. Build to manually test the artifacts of a development version
>
> Seems like, in the first case, you could be on windows, modify some code,
> build with docker to validate you didn't break stuff and submit a PR. In
> the second case, you could -DskipTests and get a build without too much
> trouble on windows (unless i'm forgetting that thing go bad there too
> though I think that we can at a minimum try to guarantee that we don't
> break: mvn clean install -DskipTests on windows).  Of course, that won't
> help if you're attempting to use GLV artifacts as they won't natively build
> on windows since we won't support that. In that case, you'd have to fall
> back to docker and get the artifacts somehow??
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Robert Dale <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry if I'm starting to get off topic, but I also think the docker build
>> should be used as part of the release process.  This would ensure a
>> clean-room build environment that would not be tainted by a developer's
>> local environment which may have rogue maven or other artifacts. One word:
>> repeatable.
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Robert Dale <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > To elaborate a little more, when the --docs option is selected, an ssh
>> > server (among other things) is started and a process is left running
>> which
>> > keeps the docker image running and accessible.  It would be great if
>> that
>> > could be a separate build option.
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Robert Dale <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I've been meaning to open a ticket to add some options to the build.sh
>> or
>> >> pass options to docker. AFAICT, the docker build is hard coded with
>> --rm
>> >> which removes the docker instance when complete. If that's removed
>> then the
>> >> instance remains, can be attached to, and files extracted. I believe
>> local
>> >> filesystems can be mounted as well and shared that way. I'm no docker
>> >> expert so perhaps there are alternatives already available.
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Stephen Mallette <
>> spmallette@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> ah - good point. i don't know anything about that. i assume that is
>> >>> possible somehow?
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Jason Plurad <pl...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> > The question is whether the distribution zip files generated during
>> the
>> >>> > build on docker image can be transferred onto your Windows
>> filesystem
>> >>> for
>> >>> > local testing.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Stephen Mallette <
>> >>> spmallette@gmail.com>
>> >>> > wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > > We have this issue open:
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1179
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > which is about AppVeyor and running a windows build. It hasn't
>> moved
>> >>> much
>> >>> > > recently and Apache Infra (i assume) has disabled the AppVeyor
>> >>> > integration
>> >>> > > (which in my book is fine b/c most of the time it ended with a red
>> >>> "X" on
>> >>> > > pull requests). So, the question is, do we care about AppVeyor and
>> >>> > > supporting a Windows build?
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > For me, i'd say "no" on both (in which case i'd just close this
>> >>> ticket).
>> >>> > > Some reasons:
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > 1. I think that there aren't enough core developers working on
>> >>> Windows to
>> >>> > > warrant the added effort of trying to maintain a Windows build.
>> >>> > > 2. The complexity of the build will increase with each GLV and it
>> >>> will be
>> >>> > > hard enough trying to keep that sane without Windows.
>> >>> > > 3. Doc generation system is bound to shell environments
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > Couldn't Windows users fall back to docker for their builds? Seems
>> >>> like
>> >>> > it
>> >>> > > would be easier to maintain a docker/build.bat than it would to
>> try
>> >>> to
>> >>> > make
>> >>> > > everything else we have work on windows? thoughts?
>> >>> > >
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Robert Dale
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Robert Dale
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Robert Dale
>>
>
>