avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen McConnell <mcconn...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Adopting JIRA
Date Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:33:22 GMT
Farr, Aaron wrote:

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org]
>>>But for Avalon, we have framework, meta, repository, utilities, etc.
>>>They're all on different release schedules.  But if we really want meta,
>>>repository and utilities to be extensions of the framework, then they
>>>all be included under one group ID (and JIRA project).
>>I'm not suggesting these for a single project.  What we can do is to
>>group a set of components together under JIRA group - and what I'm
>>thinking is that we would have multiple JIRA Groups basically close to
>>your Minimalist structure.
>>Each group would then break out into a project per versionable artifact.
>>  I.e. avalon-framework-api is a project in JIRA under the Avalon Group.
> Just to be clear, you mean have:
>     Avalon
>     Excalibur
>     Cornerstone
>     Merlin
>     Phoenix
>     Fortress
> Be JIRA categories?  And then have individual JIRA projects for each:
>     Avalon-xxx
>     Cornerstone-xxx
>     Excalibur-xxx


> Hmmm...  I don't mind the Avalon-xxx projects, but I think Cornerstone and
> Excalibur don't need to be categories.  Just a single JIRA project for each.

Here I disagree.  There are multiple cases where an API artifact does 
not change version bu the implementation artifact does.  For example, 
the change made to the Avalon Meta package impacts the meta tools 
project and the plugin project.  The api remains unchanged.  I think we 
should avoid a "group" version model as this move us away from the 
reflection of notion of major and minor version changes that correlate 
with interface/implementation changes.

> While the individual components may be different maven artifacts (and
> currently under separate group IDs), we've often released them together,
> i.e.- Cornerstone-1.0, Excalibur Release 1.x.

This reflect the past - what I would like to see is a release process 
that is much more fluid and that support the active fix, build, vote, 
publish cycle at a fine grain level.

> So I think I'm leaning towards starting with:
>    Avalon      <-- framework + docs
>    Meta         (or Avalon-Meta)
>    Repository   (or Avalon-Repository)
>    Excalibur
>    Cornerstone
>    Fortress
>    Phoenix
>    Merlin
>    LogKit
> All under a single Avalon category.

If JIRA supports nested categories I would agree with.  If it does not 
then I think we need multiple categories simply because of the number of 
independence versionable projects.

> Sorry to drag this proposal out.  Just want to make sure we get it right.
> Do any of the JIRA experts want to chime in again? :)

It's worth dragging out because whatever we setup is something we are 
probably going to live with for some time to come.

Cheers, Stephen.

> J. Aaron Farr
>   (724) 696-7653
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org


| Magic by Merlin                                |
| Production by Avalon                           |
|                                                |
| http://avalon.apache.org/merlin                |
| http://dpml.net/merlin/distributions/latest    |

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org

View raw message