continuum-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>
Subject Re: contents of a 1.1 release
Date Tue, 17 Oct 2006 23:17:08 GMT

On 17 Oct 06, at 6:15 PM 17 Oct 06, Jesse McConnell wrote:

> well, I am working on finishing up some lingering project group
> functionality now, but once I knock it off my list I'll work on the
> testing some.  I'll need to get up to speed on the latest integration
> testing work you have been working on jason, and emm mentioned on irc
> a while back that he was going to take a stab at bringing the web
> testing back on line so I'll ping him and work with him on that...
>

I think the path of separating out ITs into a separate project is the  
way to go. So they are a separate project and become the gold  
standard. Many versions of Maven can be run against the Maven ITs,  
and the same would be useful for Continuum.

> also, its looks like there is a bit of a split on where to go release
> wise atm, but I think we can all generally acknowledge that the tests
> need to get improved, at the very least getting the web testing back
> where it was before the ui refactor to webwork.  Perhaps we should
> shoot for a feature freeze of sorts for the middle of november and
> check where we are for a 1.1 release around that time.  A month should
> be more then enough time to get the test case positions recovered to
> an acceptable lvl and get a mess of the outstanding issues
> resolved/lacking features fixed up.
>

If the test are heading in the right direction that's cool and in a  
month they should be healthy as that's a good chunk of time. But the  
automated testing is key.

Jason.

> jesse
>
> On 10/17/06, Jason van Zyl <jason@maven.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 17 Oct 06, at 2:34 PM 17 Oct 06, Brett Porter wrote:
>>
>> > I agree with Emmanuel. IIRC, the profiles are already in the model,
>> > and basic choice of which JDK and maven/ant installation to use
>> > should be straightforward and extremely useful. I agree that making
>> > it more pervasive and using the toolchain support would be even
>> > better, but I don't believe it needs to wait for that.
>> >
>>
>> I would be against any more radical changes until the testing setup
>> is rock solid. We're slipping in this area. We don't really know what
>> machines this stuff runs on and I don't think anything is automated
>> anymore. We need to stop paying lip service to what we are preaching.
>>
>> Jason.
>>
>> > - Brett
>> >
>> > On 18/10/2006, at 12:54 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
>> >
>> >> 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 one  with only the possibility to
>> >> choose the maven1/maven2/ant/java home directories and use them
>> >> 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 will take lot of time, so they can be add
>> >> in 1.1.
>> >>
>> >> Of course, we need a database migration tool for the release too.
>> >>
>> >> Emmanuel
>> >>
>> >> 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
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> jesse mcconnell
> jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com


Mime
View raw message