archiva-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joakim Erdfelt <>
Subject Re: Let's release Archiva
Date Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:42:20 GMT

But we need to make it painfully clear that anything can change between
releases, with no migration path between releases.

Also, the work that is identified by MRM-153 + 211 + 212 are moot in the
branch, as other, more fundamental solutions has been worked out for
dealing with remote repositories, checksum policy, and maven 1 clients.

My Opinions:
Releasing Trunk is a mistake.
Things trunk doesn't do (or does poorly)...
* Supporting maven 1 clients.
* Supporting large repositories.
* Supporting non-http remote repositories.
* Supporting network proxy with remote repositories.
* Returning accurate results on search.
* Supporting all artifact types.
* Support artifact relocation.
* Support artifact classifiers.
* Supporting multiple remote repositories for proxying.
* Support remote repository snapshot policy.
* Supporting the indexing of legacy repositories.
* Artifacts with missing parents.
* Artifacts with missing dependencies.
* Supporting Tomcat.

Any release of trunk should be considered pre-1.0 (not even alpha-1) as
it is so broken.
Any release of trunk should be made painfully clear to ONLY support ...

* Maven 2 default repositories.
* Proxying to 1 remote repository with http only.
* No network proxy support.
* Under 3,000 artifacts supported.
* Full and complete heirarchy of artifacts (parents and dependencies)
must be present in repositories to work.

- Joakim

Wendy Smoak wrote:
> On 4/10/07, Joakim Erdfelt <> wrote:
>> -1
>> The branch changes enough things that it would be a collosal pain in the
>> ass to migrate from whatever is on trunk to the code in branch.
>> configuration format is changed, lucene index has changed, database has
>> changed.
>> each of which isn't even close to the structure that exists on trunk.
>> please.
>> be patient.
>> we're aiming for a branch to trunk merge within 2 weeks.
>> and a release shortly after that.
> People are already using it.  They will have to convert (or start
> over).  The current situation is not fair to the users, and not fair
> to the developers who under ASF guildelines [1] should not be
> discussing unreleased software with non-developers.  (By that logic we
> shouldn't even have a user list yet.)
> A 1.0-alpha-1 now doesn't have to be widely distributed and promoted.
> It will give us a comparison point for the new code, and something to
> document changes against.
> [1]

View raw message