continuum-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason van Zyl <>
Subject Re: Continuum 1.1 roadmap
Date Wed, 28 Jun 2006 10:40:28 GMT

On 28 Jun 06, at 11:25 AM 28 Jun 06, Brett Porter wrote:

> On 28/06/2006 8:01 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>> I assume for this we are going to release a series of alphas? How  
>> about for each major feature implemented we release an alpha?
> When we last discussed it on the development process, we talked  
> about instead doing regular promotion of the automated builds (eg,  
> roughly once a week we say "this is a stable build with something  
> new/a good fix/etc, let's ask people to test it").
> I'd really like to try that (and add anything to continuum to make  
> it easier :)

Yes, but we still have to make some official public releases. I don't  
think we can just release Continuum generated builds and then just  
release 1.1? Or do I misunderstand what you're talking about.

>> If the work is done in a branch we can just comment as the work  
>> commences. I'm sure I won't find the time but I would still like  
>> to try SASS which Patrick has been working on if I can.
> Carlos' work is on trunk now and he seems committed to getting it  
> started next week, so maybe the best thing is for him to work on  
> trunk and doing sass on a branch if it's just going to be a spare  
> time thing?

No, I would prefer them both to be done on the branch. I'm honestly  
+0 on using Acegi and I want to see fully how it might be done before  
passing judgement but I don't want it on the trunk as I honestly feel  
that it's just so complicated. Carlos will have to show it's not and  
that's just as easy to do on a branch.

>>>>> - Remove JDO (at least jpox) because it the source of lot of  
>>>>> our issues
>>>> +1
> My only opinion on this is to think about it, but save the work  
> until we bump into the next big problem that is going to require a  
> lot of effort to fix. It seems stable enough in 1.0.3 and if it  
> remains that way through 1.1 it can buy us some time.
> I'm interested in seeing how JPA progresses as a replacement for  
> this (even if it requires Java 5, which it would be nice to move to  
> anyway :) There should be a better choice of implementations and  
> the API is similar I think.
> It's a shame we're having so many problems, as the jdo api is  
> actually quite nice.
> BTW, have we done much trials with databases other than hsqldb and  
> derby? Maybe the problem isn't JDO :)
>>>>> - customization of the add project feature. In this part, I  
>>>>> think to add a multi-project as a multiple projects or as a  
>>>>> single project, scm connection string to use, add with a scm  
>>>>> url, add all modules by a scm connection instead of an url  
>>>>> contruction based on project url provided in the add screen
> Absolutely. We should talk through this one a bit more, as maybe  
> the solution is to have it better understand module relationships.  
> This also relates to something I'd like to see happen where we have  
> the checkout in the normal layout instead of isolated directories  
> (to avoid checking out the modules twice - once in the parent and  
> once for each module).
> - Brett
> -- 
> Brett Porter <>
> Apache Maven -
> Better Builds with Maven -

Jason van Zyl

View raw message