continuum-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brett Porter <>
Subject Re: contents of a 1.1 release
Date Tue, 17 Oct 2006 18:34:27 GMT
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.

- 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

View raw message