continuum-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Edward Gruber <>
Subject Re: contents of a 1.1 release
Date Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:27:34 GMT
I wouldn't make a feature-freeze just yet (I'm biased, as I have a
feature planned that is very minimal-impact. :)  but I wouldn't wnat to
wait to release until the new year.  I think momentum is an important
thing, and the change to group handling, the ui changes, plus the rbac
stuff makes continuum incrementally quite valuable.

I would push hard to clean up but not dramatically refactor, focusing on
stablizing, and release.  Or at least stablize somewhat and release a
1.1-Alpha that's vaguely stable, but something.  I think the current
state (well, current feature set when tidied) solve most of my perceived
deficiencies in the thing. 

It's tempting, but let's not do the big push until we release
something.  I don't think it would take too much of a detour to  firm
things up, before we can start hacking the model to bits (which I highly

A few clean-up points: (may be in Jira, but just things I have noticed)

1. Project still depends on resources not available on public maven
servers.  We should through advocacy, or re-factoring to use available
versions, seek to remedy that.
2. Some things like "per-project build act buttons" are missing
3. Adding notifiers manually is not implemented (at least in the UI)


P.S.  Notice I said "we", which does imply my willingness to help and
contribute. -cg.

Jesse McConnell wrote:
> I was going to try and wrap my head about what needed to get wrapped
> up for a 1.1 release of continuum this week when I got to talking to
> emmanuel this morning.
> I had been under the impression that we were getting near a point that
> we might want to polish things up and cut a 1.1 release but emm was
> thinking that we ought to have another big push for new features
> before we start polishing things up.  So I told him I would mention
> our talk and see what kinda interest we got from people on new
> features and who might want to tackle what in the short term, or if we
> wanted to put some things out into the longer term bin.
> One of the major things that I had been thinking we would push off to
> the 1.2 release was the profiles.  Its a slightly overridden term as
> it has little to do with maven profiles, but in my mind at least the
> profiles were going to be 1/3 of a trinity by which builds could be
> setup to run.
> The trinity being: profile (maven instance, env vars, maven profiles,
> jdk instance, etc), temporal ( scheduled cron, when dependency
> changes, scm activity, etc) and the project group (bundle of
> projects).  I was figuring that those three things taken together
> ought meet the requirements for building what, where and when.  It
> would be a matter of setting up the permutations of those three
> components, for example: 2 profiles, 1 schedule, 1 project group would
> make 2 instances of schedulable FOO.
> Anyway, I digress...profiles would be one large feature that would be
> wonderful to have in continuum, sooner the better.  But it would be
> pretty massive effects on the codebase.  So massive that I would think
> we ought to consider splitting up the DefaultContinuum object into the
> workflows that have been kicked around, making things like 'Add
> Project To Project Group' extensible by users so they can trigger any
> other processes they might want running on those events.  Trygve has
> some definite ideas in this area, perhaps using the plexus-spe code.
> The actions in continuum have been a first pass attempt at starting to
> break things out of the DC object which is pretty big atm.
> If we were going to rip the top off of the DefaultContinuum object and
> add/modify in the profile concepts into the store then we really ought
> to clean up the whole store api which is more painful to work with
> then it really should be.  joakim and I had a lot of success with
> structuring things nicely in the plexus-security jdo stores and we
> could probably apply a ton of the concepts there in terms of api to
> the continuum-store and make it scads easier to work with.
> and on and on.
> I agree with Emmanuel that since 1.1 as it currently stands is not
> backwards compatible (I think) with the old database we ought to just
> add in what we need now...But doing this will definitely move out a
> 1.1 release into the new year...and is that something we want to do?
> I dunno really, personally I would be cool with adding in profiles and
> refactoring the core chunks of continuum up now and get it over with,
> but does anyone else have anything to say on the matter?  I know we
> have had a lot more interest recently by folks like rahul and
> christian on participating, would you guys be interested in taking on
> some of these challenges with us?  Theres nothing like ripping through
> the guts of code to really get involved :)
> thoughts?  should we open this out to the users list maybe?
> jesse


*christian** gruber + process coach and architect*

*Israfil Consulting Services Corporation*

*email** + bus 905.640.1119 + mob 416.998.6023*

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message