archiva-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wendy Smoak <>
Subject Staging repositories (was: Re: GSoC projects?)
Date Fri, 02 Apr 2010 20:47:34 GMT
(I changed the subject line so it doesn't get lost in the generic discussion)

On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 4:15 PM, eshan sudharaka <> wrote:

> * Assign a Temporory reposotory for a group.(eg : com.MyTempRep.example)

How do you think this should happen?  Currently an admin has to create
a repo and assign permissions before it can be used.

> * Only they are allowed to publish artifacts and the tempo rory repo is only
> open to them untill deploye the all artifacts to        be tested.(not visible to
> the common repo with have tesed modules)

How would you determine that all the artifacts have been deployed?

> *  once the temporory reposotory is closed it should me prevented from the
> developers being updating and it should be opened to QA people to
> testing(Same temporory repo will be used.only acces grants should be chaged
> and assing the acces for the QA         group)

Archiva doesn't currently know anything about 'developers' vs. 'QA'.
It just has users with roles like repository manager or observer.

Is this something you want to introduce?

> * once testing is done > if it success then merge the temp repo to the
> common repo(where the tested modules are located)
> if it fails then manually removed from the repo.

IMO, this is the most important part (the promotion/merge step) and it
could be addressed separately from the roles/repo access part.

In fact I'd like to be able to merge any two repositories, separately
from any staging/promotion workflow. See

> I dont understand how the audit log is linking with this project idea.could
> u please explain it?

The audit log needs to record all changes to the repositories.
who/what/where, etc.  That would apply to these staging repos as well.

Unless it's already been changed, I remember the audit logging being a
rather complex event driven thing.  Don't get too bogged down in it if
it looks scary, it probably needs to be reworked as a separate

> and also are we need to wary about the changes that are done in the
> artifacts in temporary repo (by developers).I mean whether we should provide
> a facility like svn diff ?

Once an artifact is deployed, it should not change.  (I believe
Archiva already prevents re-deploying a released [non-SNAPSHOT]
artifact.)  So no, I don't think a diff utility is needed.


View raw message