Mailing-List: contact continuum-dev-help@maven.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: continuum-dev@maven.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
In-Reply-To: <a43524d00610161134s3b22f585re354d51120a1c9af@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a43524d00610161134s3b22f585re354d51120a1c9af@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <97EEF816-B44F-441F-A8C6-E42DEC3C58BD@maven.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jason van Zyl <jason@maven.org>
Subject: Re: contents of a 1.1 release
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:03:27 -0400
To: continuum-dev@maven.apache.org


On 16 Oct 06, at 2:34 PM 16 Oct 06, 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.
>

You might want to hold off on profiles while the toolchain support is  
being developed in Maven. I think continuum profiles would benefit  
from incorporating any ideas we use for toolchains.

> 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.
>

I think focusing on getting the security in and preparing for real  
workflow would be enough for 1.1.

> 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.
>

Yah, I would agree that some refactoring in there before attempting  
to add profiles would be wise.

> 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?
>

You have to make that compatible by whatever means necessary. There  
has to be a way to swizzle the information or has the schema changed  
so that data was removed? There's nothing we can do about this? That  
really sucks for users.

> 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?
>

I don't think there is any rush for the profiles. Decomposing the DC  
component for workflow is going to be a general plexus app thing and  
probably not trivial. I think getting security into 1.1 and improving  
the testing facilities would be a more prudent path. If you can not  
test continuum on all the platforms we claim to support then I would  
say nothing else is of a higher priority then getting that working  
before anything else happens.  What's the state of the testing?

Jason.

> jesse
>
> -- 
> jesse mcconnell
> jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
>