Mailing-List: contact dev-help@continuum.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@continuum.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of brent.atkinson@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.223.171 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <908A4A4B-7842-4B8D-9587-D07F8A945793@apache.org>
References: 
 <CALyHw0Gtdr+TxiEJeFXMyKh2zCt-FXjJidG1p-Hv7Bzc_SawOQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<908A4A4B-7842-4B8D-9587-D07F8A945793@apache.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 07:49:52 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CALyHw0Gcuq7X3YLqmUCX+XUVJxBF7Y6mhn3wjvrWepA=nHxUdw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Using git for a possible 1.4.3 release
From: Brent Atkinson <brent.atkinson@gmail.com>
To: dev <dev@continuum.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc08a619ec8d050d8d9312

--047d7bdc08a619ec8d050d8d9312
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi Brett,

Probably the only hesitation would be if it absorbs time that prevents
> getting the release out, since it sounds important - but if you can manage,
> go for it.


Your hesitation may be justified. Considering the security update it
probably makes sense to cut a quick release and plan a scoped-down release
some time shortly after. It also would allow me to run through the release
process with an eye on what we may have to update.

No worries about not being able to lend a hand and I appreciate your offer.
You definitely have more context, so I may end up having to take you up on
it. I have the time to complete it as long as I can get enough information.

Regards,
Brent

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 5:32 AM, Brett Porter <brett@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi Brent,
>
> Migrating to git and getting a timely release out to make sure everything
> works sounds good. Probably the only hesitation would be if it absorbs time
> that prevents getting the release out, since it sounds important - but if
> you can manage, go for it.
>
> Let me know how I can help... I don't have a lot of time to work on it
> right now, but happy to answer questions / test / review, etc.
>
> Cheers,
> Brett
>
> > On 26 Jan 2015, at 9:41 am, Brent Atkinson <brent.atkinson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I would like to re-open this discussion in the context of a 1.4.3 bugfix
> > release.
> >
> > The git mirror grants many of the same benefits of git, but having both
> > subversion and git involved in the development and release processes adds
> > complexity. I would like to simplify and gain the ability to directly use
> > branches for contribution and review, perhaps even through social coding
> > sites to make contribution simpler for the contributor.
> >
> > I'm wondering: I recently updated continuum to the latest version of
> > struts2 while working on CONTINUUM-2723. Since a major part of the
> > migration is updating the release process and we have a reason  to
> release,
> > security and blocker defects, Do you think it would make sense to
> attempt a
> > quick 1.4.3 release with git?
> >
> > Brent
> >
> > I'm willing to do the necessary leg work, and a good chunk of time to do
> > it. I'm wondering
> >
> > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Brent Atkinson <
> brent.atkinson@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Louis,
> >>
> >> Thank you for offering your feedback. My understanding so far was that
> we
> >> were talking about the relevance and logistics of the different ideas.
> It
> >> did not make sense to talk about schedule quite yet because it wasn't
> clear
> >> we would want to do it. Also, I didn't think we were talking about
> making
> >> major changes to the implementations necessarily.
> >>
> >> The git migration is a source control-only change, it does not include
> >> changing continuum's support for git. The talk about svnpubsub, the
> parent
> >> pom and Apache CMS was in response to my query about what effects
> migrating
> >> to read/write git would have on how we manage the rest of the project.
> It
> >> should not affect functionality.
> >>
> >> The source code reorganization would be about moving the code around to
> >> redraw the module boundaries. While there might be functionality impacts
> >> due to the scope of what would be changing, it would mostly be moving
> code
> >> and not rewriting it (for now).
> >>
> >> I think it makes sense to talk about release timing, but it probably
> makes
> >> sense as a separate thread still.
> >>
> >> Brent
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Louis Smith <dr.louis.smith@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Should all the initiatives under discussion be combined into a major
> >>> project?  Make this Continuum 3.0?  Include full GIT support, move to
> GIT,
> >>> re-factor (per the other thread), move reports to Apache CMS... Seems
> like
> >>> a HUGE amount of work has been discussed when you collapse the various
> >>> threads here.
> >>>
> >>> How large is the Continuum user base at this point?  How would this
> impact
> >>> them?  What would the upgrade path be?
> >>>
> >>> From my point of view, I have nearly 300 projects (200 or so "active)
> in
> >>> one of my clients SDI.  With nearly 2 dozen support libraries, 10
> >>> multi-module,  80 "under development" up to the 64 in production.
> >>> Releases
> >>> are done almost daily.
> >>>
> >>> A major "upgrade" impact would be something we would have to carefully
> >>> schedule - but it would actually be easier than 4 or 5 smaller ones.
> >>>
> >>> Just random thoughts from the old man who hasn't had enough coffee
> yet...
> >>>
> >>> Louis
> >>>
> >>> Dr. Louis Smith, ThD
> >>> Chief Technology Officer, Kyra InfoTech
> >>> Museum Director, Veterans Memorial Railroad
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Brett Porter <brett@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 20 May 2014, at 1:17 am, Brent Atkinson <brent.atkinson@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> That is encouraging. I am happy to do this myself if people find it
> >>>>> valuable. The project is already converted to git as you said.
> >>> However,
> >>>> how
> >>>>> site publishing and the parent pom fit into this is not clear to me.
> >>> Not
> >>>>> knowing the ins and outs of the Apache-specific processes like svn
> >>> pubsub
> >>>>> and how and when parent poms are staged (just for example), it is not
> >>>> clear
> >>>>> what effect if any moving to git would have.
> >>>>
> >>>> Really no effect there - svnpubsub is still used for the site publish,
> >>> but
> >>>> it's a checkout from a separate SVN repo. Likewise, the parent POM is
> >>>> published to an artifact repository, so that's the same.
> >>>>
> >>>> Whether the site & parent POM get moved to Git or left in SVN is
> >>> something
> >>>> to decide. I'd suggest just starting with the main trunk and approach
> >>> the
> >>>> others later if needed. For example, we might later decide to use the
> >>>> Apache CMS for the site instead of a Maven project, and in that case
> the
> >>>> parent POM probably isn't needed.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I am more than happy to figure
> >>>>> it out, though I may need help identifying the most relevant channels
> >>> to
> >>>> do
> >>>>> it.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think the steps are:
> >>>> - hold a vote here
> >>>> - if passed, ask infra to convert the repository and coordinate with
> the
> >>>> list
> >>>> - once done, go through the POMs, developer and contributor
> >>> documentation
> >>>> and make sure repository references point to the new location
> >>>>
> >>>> As always, I'm happy to help - I just don't have cycles to drive that
> at
> >>>> the moment.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Brett
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>

--047d7bdc08a619ec8d050d8d9312--