continuum-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Venisse <>
Subject Re: contents of a 1.1 release
Date Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:54:45 GMT
The introduction of continuum profiles isn't impacted by the DefaultContinuum refactoring.
If we don't provide a full continuum profiles implementation in 1.1, I think we can do a minimal
  with only the possibility to choose the maven1/maven2/ant/java home directories and use
instead of using maven/ant/mvn/java from the PATH. This feature isn't big to do.

In 1.1, I'd like to see the possibility to choose in build definitions if a project is built
with an 
update (like it's done actually) or with a clean checkout.

The last point, I'd like to see in 1.1 is the dependency/parent change build-trigger.

All these features are awaited by users since a long time. I don't think the implementation
take lot of time, so they can be add in 1.1.

Of course, we need a database migration tool for the release too.


Jesse McConnell a écrit :
> 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

View raw message