royale-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Release Philosophy (was Re: [Website] Getting content ready to publish)
Date Mon, 13 Nov 2017 11:42:54 GMT
Carlos,

I'm not convinced that we should move framework build from Alex's Azure PC.
It is really convenient if something went wrong to just connect with the
PC. If you would like to have distribution build under Apache umbrella you
will need to fight with Infra about that. Maven is building on Apache
servers, Chris handle that. I would rather not invest the time in that
since we have working everything on Alex PC, but that's just mine
convenient and save time view. :)

Piotr


2017-11-13 12:36 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <carlosrovira@apache.org>:

> Hi Piotr,
>
> ok, as we are still in preview site, not published, I think is better to
> wait for the final link.
> One thing is confusing me is that status link is more legit (
> builds.apache.org) than the nightly links (apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net)
>
> I think in a final stage we should not have "apacheflexbuild" right?
> But status seems ok to me at first sight
>
> thanks
>
> 2017-11-12 20:04 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
>
> > Another thing is: "Apache Royale Jenkings Job Status" - This status
> showing
> > the state of Maven build which is hosted on builds.apache.org. Since we
> > are
> > using Alex's machine for producing ditribution package for developers we
> > should not have it this link on the website.
> >
> > Maven is able to build distribution package, but so far it's missing some
> > things and you can use that package only for code completion purposes in
> > your IDE either Moonshine or VSCode. If I find resources I hope I will
> fix
> > it and we can then linking to Maven build.
> >
> > Thanks Carslo for that website! :)
> > Piotr
> >
> >
> > 2017-11-12 18:42 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Hi Carlos,
> > >
> > > Here you go links to Royale. I see proper names. Royale [1] JS Only
> [2].
> > I
> > > did just quick look and when I came to the website I started to search
> > this
> > > information that Nightly is not for production. After w while I have
> > found
> > > this red rectangle. I think font size could be a bit bigger there.
> > >
> > > [1] http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/royale-
> > > asjs/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/out/
> > > [2] http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/royale-asjs-jsonly/
> > > lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/out/
> > >
> > > Piotr
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2017-11-12 18:30 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <carlosrovira@apache.org>:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> here's the download page for you to review.
> > >>
> > >> http://royale.codeoscopic.com/download/
> > >>
> > >> Some things to mention:
> > >>
> > >> * As we already don't have release binaries, the first section could
> be
> > >> consider under construction
> > >> * For nightly builds I use the links posted by Alex in October. I
> think
> > >> those links are somewhat temporal since are labeled in "FlexJS"
> instead
> > of
> > >> "RoyaleJS" or something and he mentions the to rename in the future.
> > >>
> > >> You can check if links are the expected, or we need to put something
> > more.
> > >>
> > >> Take into account that the info is what I found navigating through the
> > >> mailing list and since I'm not a user of that links, although we will
> > need
> > >> to update as we get final names, they can be wrong links at this time.
> > >>
> > >> Hope you guys could let me know what is right and wrong
> > >>
> > >> Thanks
> > >>
> > >> Carlos
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2017-11-11 11:35 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <carlosrovira@apache.org>:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi Alex,
> > >> >
> > >> > as in lots of things in life I think we should get to some point in
> > the
> > >> > middle. I think it would be bad if we try to make lots of components
> > in
> > >> few
> > >> > time, since as you said, we don't know what things people will need
> > >> > nowadays. I like your point about "we don't need to mimic Flex 4.x",
> > for
> > >> > example, a cool Date component should work seamlessly in mobile and
> > >> > desktop, so better to create a royale one than try to get Flex 4
> > >> > DateChooser and DateSpinner, since we have in flex both due to the
> way
> > >> Flex
> > >> > was evolving through the years. They worked great for the web and
> > >> desktop,
> > >> > but suddenly a new mobile world emerge and they must respect the old
> > >> way to
> > >> > do things.
> > >> >
> > >> > In the other hand, I think it would be very bad for us to left
> things
> > >> > completely to users demand. We know right now that some components
> are
> > >> > needed and we can propose others as well.
> > >> >
> > >> > I think I'll better create a new thread since I think this one was
> > more
> > >> > about releases and nightly builds so we can stay on focus
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > 2017-11-11 8:04 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com.invalid>:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Well, I would love to be wrong about "few years", but I know I
> > wouldn't
> > >> >> bet any money on knowing what components and features our users
who
> > are
> > >> >> migrating from Flex are going to need.  And I would hope we don't
> > have
> > >> to
> > >> >> say to any users "well, we don't have that component/feature so
too
> > >> bad",
> > >> >> unless it is a really extensive and expensive component that we
> don't
> > >> have
> > >> >> the committer-power to reproduce.   Maybe we do have the ability
to
> > >> gather
> > >> >> that list of components/features up front, but I am expecting
that
> we
> > >> are
> > >> >> going to have to be demand-driven.  Whoever signs up to migrate
to
> > >> Royale
> > >> >> will have my priority just like Harbs and Yishay did.  I did not
> ask
> > >> them
> > >> >> to commit up front to what they needed, they started migrating
and
> > >> asked
> > >> >> for stuff and we made it happen.  I expect it to be like that
for
> at
> > >> least
> > >> >> a few years, and we need to be able to make releases quickly in
> order
> > >> to
> > >> >> respond to those users.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I'm hopeful that as we gain users, we will also have more automated
> > >> tests
> > >> >> and that's how we are going to try to prevent breaking people's
> apps,
> > >> but
> > >> >> I think we will be spending at least a few years bringing new
> > >> components
> > >> >> and features to Royale and need to get that stuff out to users
as
> > >> quickly
> > >> >> as possible.  If you think about the number of person-hours
> invested
> > in
> > >> >> the writing and testing and documenting of Apache Flex and its
> third
> > >> party
> > >> >> components, and compare that to the time Peter and I have spent
on
> > >> Royale
> > >> >> (subtract out what we've spent on Flex and non-FlexJS work) plus
> > Harbs
> > >> and
> > >> >> Yishay (subtract out the time they spent on their actual app)
and
> > >> others
> > >> >> like Om, Erik, Carlos and Piotr, it looks to me that there is
still
> > >> plenty
> > >> >> of work to be done, and the only way to decide what order to do
> > things
> > >> is
> > >> >> to do what users ask us for.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I know you want a clear list of controls/components for a theme,
> but
> > I
> > >> >> don't know how we will decide other than, say, taking the ones
> > actually
> > >> >> used by Harbs and adding any other component wanted by the next
> folks
> > >> that
> > >> >> sign up for migration.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> My philosophy is to not set expectations too high (that Royale
will
> > be
> > >> >> like Flex 4.x) and failing to meet those expectations.  If we
make
> a
> > >> lot
> > >> >> of noise soon, what kinds of people will that bring, and what
will
> > make
> > >> >> them stay?  If we can attract more pioneers like our current
> > committers
> > >> >> who are willing to help blaze the trail, great, let's go get them.
> > If
> > >> it
> > >> >> is going to bring in folks who are expecting Royale to be like
> Flex,
> > >> I'm
> > >> >> not sure we are there yet.  I think this latter group is going
to
> > want
> > >> to
> > >> >> know about success stories from other people, so IMO, the most
> > >> important
> > >> >> thing is that we need to make a few more users successful in their
> > >> >> migration.  But those next users are going to have to be willing
to
> > >> put up
> > >> >> with bugs and missing features, so we need to set their
> expectations
> > >> >> appropriately.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> My 2 cents,
> > >> >> -Alex
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On 11/10/17, 11:47 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of
> Carlos
> > >> >> Rovira" <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of
> > carlosrovira@apache.org>
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >Hi,
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >I agree with this, but want to expose some thoughts that I
> consider
> > >> >> >important:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >I think we must to cut a release as we get in the same similar
> > stable
> > >> >> >state
> > >> >> >as we had in FlexJS (0.8.0), and call it 0.8.0, since this
is
> only a
> > >> >> >transition release to get in our new house, but we still have
some
> > >> >> missing
> > >> >> >key pieces to get 0.9.0 and 1.0
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >I suppose a Alex talks about "some years" but I don't think
so. If
> > we
> > >> do
> > >> >> >0.9 and 1.0 in the right way, I expect to make huge noise
on the
> > >> internet
> > >> >> >talking about Apache Royale and making lots of people put
an eye
> on
> > >> us.
> > >> >> >This must be at proper time to get people reaching to us not
leave
> > >> easily
> > >> >> >and take us seriously as a real alternative.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >How many time to get this? I hope more soon than later. Maybe
1T
> > 2018?
> > >> >> 2T?
> > >> >> >People coming at that time will start to use Royale and we
will
> need
> > >> some
> > >> >> >coherence all around.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >That's crucial and that will make us not easy to make certain
> > changes
> > >> >> that
> > >> >> >could make user developments not valid.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >So, for example, We still does not have a clear list of starter
UI
> > >> >> >components and controls. I think we will need to discuss that
and
> > work
> > >> >> for
> > >> >> >it so people could rely on some quality components (I think
I will
> > >> create
> > >> >> >a
> > >> >> >thread about this concrete part since I think is crucial for
us).
> We
> > >> will
> > >> >> >need to have certain parts of Royale very robust and defined
so
> > people
> > >> >> >could come and expect and easy relation with that parts and
avoid
> to
> > >> left
> > >> >> >because they think we "many things" but as well "many of that
> things
> > >> are
> > >> >> >not finished" in a quality level similar to the quality level
> > reached
> > >> on
> > >> >> >apache flex.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >So, going back. We need to cut a release as soon as we can
to get
> a
> > >> valid
> > >> >> >starter point, we need to release the new website with quality
> > content
> > >> >> and
> > >> >> >what we could have soon (if we have royale on NPM, that's
good!,
> and
> > >> so
> > >> >> >on....), we can put a download page with releases and talk
about
> > ways
> > >> for
> > >> >> >people to get nightly builds, but we must think in the people
that
> > >> will
> > >> >> >come to us and what they expect to see;
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >For me: something clear, as easy as possible info in website,
an
> sdk
> > >> with
> > >> >> >proven valid ways to make apps and a concrete set of UI controls
> and
> > >> >> >components that works really well to start building the same
day
> > they
> > >> >> know
> > >> >> >about Apache Royale.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >2017-11-10 20:12 GMT+01:00 Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net>:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >> Hi -
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> I agree it is intent and trust. A couple of incidents
in the
> long
> > >> >> >>history
> > >> >> >> of POI.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> (1) we discovered a GPL file that had been in the source
tree
> for
> > a
> > >> >> >>couple
> > >> >> >> of releases and removed it.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> (2) we had a complaint from the copyright holder that
a test
> file
> > >> >> >>belonged
> > >> >> >> to him. It had been there for many years. We removed
it from the
> > >> next
> > >> >> >> release.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Anyone concerned with nit picking this should be watching
every
> > >> commit.
> > >> >> >>In
> > >> >> >> the Incubator a mentor will bring it up then and most
often say
> > next
> > >> >> >>time.
> > >> >> >> Here in a project we deal as they come and it should
be on the
> > >> commit.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> If someone brings in a significant amount of code then
a SGA may
> > be
> > >> >> >>needed
> > >> >> >> along with IP Clearance in the Incubator.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Regards,
> > >> >> >> Dave
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> > On Nov 10, 2017, at 11:02 AM, Alex Harui
> > <aharui@adobe.com.INVALID
> > >> >
> > >> >> >> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > Hi Dave,
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > It would help to make license problems rare if we
also do
> > >> something
> > >> >> >>else
> > >> >> >> > Roy has mentioned recently that has to do with trust
and
> intent.
> > >> If
> > >> >> >>you
> > >> >> >> > dig hard enough, or take an "untrusting" philosophy
that if
> > >> something
> > >> >> >> > isn't perfectly documented that someone is going
to use that
> > >> >> >>imperfection
> > >> >> >> > against you or the foundation, you can continue
to find small
> > >> >> >>licensing
> > >> >> >> > issues, especially in the third party artifacts
we consume.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > Roy basically said that folks want us to use the
stuff the
> make
> > >> >> >>available
> > >> >> >> > on open source sites otherwise they wouldn't have
put it
> there.
> > >> They
> > >> >> >> > might have slightly different rules about sharing
it and
> > >> >> >>modifications to
> > >> >> >> > it, but the intent is to share it.
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > So let me add to "better and not illegal" with "trust".
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > Thanks,
> > >> >> >> > -Alex
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >> On 11/10/17, 10:47 AM, "Dave Fisher" <dave2wave@comcast.net>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> Hi -
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> For source code we can point to github from
the website.
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> For nightly builds we can let people know about
it on dev@
> but
> > >> >> should
> > >> >> >> not
> > >> >> >> >> link to it from the website. We can explain
on the website or
> > >> wiki
> > >> >> >>that
> > >> >> >> >> we are doing nightly builds and that they can
find out from
> the
> > >> dev@
> > >> >> >> list.
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> At this point it should be rare to have a license
problem in
> > the
> > >> >> >> >> repository because we all should know the rules
or how to ask
> > on
> > >> >> dev@
> > >> >> >> or
> > >> >> >> >> private@ first.
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> Clear?
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> Regards,
> > >> >> >> >> Dave
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >>> On Nov 10, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Alex Harui
> > >> <aharui@adobe.com.INVALID
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >> >>> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >> >>> Forking this specific issue about nightly
builds...
> > >> >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >> >>> AIUI, this issue about nightly builds has
arisen before with
> > >> other
> > >> >> >> >>> projects.  I'd have to go through board@/member@
archives
> > but I
> > >> >> >>think
> > >> >> >> >>> some
> > >> >> >> >>> projects have found some pretty clever solutions
to linking
> to
> > >> >> >>nightly
> > >> >> >> >>> builds.
> > >> >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >> >>> That said, one of the benefits of creating
a Royale project
> > >> >> separate
> > >> >> >> >>> from
> > >> >> >> >>> Flex is that there should not be any 'competition'
in the
> > >> release
> > >> >> >> queue.
> > >> >> >> >>> For example, the Flex project is currently
trying to get two
> > >> >> >>releases
> > >> >> >> >>> out,
> > >> >> >> >>> and if some other Flex member wanted to
rush out a BlazeDS
> > >> release,
> > >> >> >> >>> they'd
> > >> >> >> >>> probably have to wait.
> > >> >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >> >>> Royale has 3 main repos, and under FlexJS/Falcon,
we
> created 2
> > >> sets
> > >> >> >>of
> > >> >> >> >>> release artifacts.  Royale might still have
2 sets of
> release
> > >> >> >>artifacts
> > >> >> >> >>> (
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >--
> > >> >> >Carlos Rovira
> > >> >> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%
> > >> >> 2F%2Fabout.me%2
> > >> >> >Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7C%7C4ddfd5d3bb8e44f9b4c508d5287
> > >> >> 3f24b%7Cfa7b1b5
> > >> >> >a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636459400811686261&sdat
> > >> >> a=AONFxld%2FTJz
> > >> >> >zDM%2Frjf0g6L8PfwqlpJHkF9RVZII1TWo%3D&reserved=0
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > 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
>



-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message