commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Nightly snapshots
Date Mon, 01 Aug 2011 18:19:13 GMT
On 8/1/11 10:16 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> On Aug 1, 2011, at 10:03 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>
>> Le 01/08/2011 18:41, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>> On 8/1/11 9:25 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>>>> Le 01/08/2011 17:57, Ralph Goers a écrit :
>>>>> These will just be new SNAPSHOTs so deploying a new one every
>>>>> evening regardless of whether it has changed should be no big
>>>>> deal. SNAPSHOTs without a timestamp overwrite a previous one
>>>>> while timestamped SNAPSHOTs should be cleaned up automatically by
>>>>> Nexus.
>>>> What's the preferred strategy? Timestamped snapshots or not?
>>> I think its better to have a timestamp and to create full nightlies
>>> - not just snapshot jars, but full timestamted source and binary
>>> tarballs as we used to.  FWIW, I think it is better not to push
>>> snaps into maven repos, but rather to place tarballs in a location
>>> where the sources and jars can be downloaded and unpacked.  This is
>>> to emphasize that the reason we are providing them is for developers
>>> to look at the sources and test with the jars, rather than to
>>> encourage "snapshot dependencies."  If the machine account problem
>>> has been solved from vmbuild to p.a.o, this should be pretty easy to
>>> automate.  I may have old scripts around somewhere that worked
>>> modulo this problem.
>> I am really on the fence with nightly builds.
>> I fear people will start to use them as official Apache blessed releases. They are
not releases, they will change every day (or every night). We should have prominent warnings
that they represent instant state and *cannot* be relied upon.
>>
>> IMHO, when people are brave enough to test development version, they should compile
them by themselves. It is a way to filter out users that would not even care fixing an obvious
typo that make a test fail. With nightly builds, we may end up answering many requests for
more stability even in the nightly versions.
>>
>> For what purpose do we need nightly builds ? Who are the people who need nightly
builds and cannot build them by themselves ?
> This is exactly why I am OK with SNAPSHOTs in a snapshot repository and nothing more.
 This makes it convenient for users to test the latest code without requiring that they build
it but since it isn't tagged most people who use Maven understand it shouldn't be relied on.

I agree with Luc that we need to be careful with this.  I also think
that the world does not revolve around maven.  Therefore, I think it
is a better compromise to publish nightlies in a location that is
clearly labelled and forces users to a) download and b) install the
jar or build the sources.  This is also a more friendly solution for
people who do not use maven.  It worked for us for years until we
hit the machine auth problem around the same time the ASF got
collectively squeamish about nightlies for the reasons that Luc
gives above.  I think with clear labeling we can safely do this. 
Ant [1] handles this fairly well.  Unfortunately, I don't think you
can link directly to the Continuum-generated artifacts as Jenkins
seems to be able to do.

Phil
>
> Ralph
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>


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


Mime
View raw message