geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>
Subject Re: no more modules for specs...
Date Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:07:16 GMT
On Dec 16, 2006, at 4:49 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> Why do you want to rebuild released jars?  I certainly think the  
> automated system should be rebuilding all the non-released code we  
> know about, but I don't understand the point of ever rebuilding  
> released code.  Is this because you think the jar in the remote  
> repo will change?  I would think saving the expected hashcode and  
> comparing with the actual hashcode would be more reliable.

2 reasons... one, to always be 100% sure the the codebase reflects  
the release binary, and to ensure that the codebase is always buildable.

This moves the trust from the released binary on some webserver  
somewhere back to the source code repository.


> I don't really see rebuilding from source as a defense against the  
> remote repo changing.  Everyone else is going to be using the  
> remote repo, so even if we have a more correct locally built  
> version everyone else will be screwed.

I don't see it that way at all... by building from source, if  
anything does happen to the remote artifacts, then it will be quickly  
apparent what happened... and more so the automated builds will keep  
working.  But as mentioned above, there is more to building the  
artifacts than simply to defend against artifacts being altered or  
removed.


> I would think using an svn based repo or keeping our own audit  
> trail (such as the hashes for every released artifact we use) would  
> be more reliable.  If some released artifact changes, I think no  
> automated recovery is possible: someone has to figure out why and  
> figure out what to do about it, since maven allegedly guarantees  
> that it will never happen.

Sure it will happen... and has happened and will continue to happen.   
Just because Maven's repo has some policy against artifact removal or  
tampering, does not mean that someone can't not hack into the system  
and change it... or a catastrophe might occur and loose a bunch of  
data, but more so... other groups run their own repositories, and  
there is no way to ensure that they follow the system set of policies  
as the Maven folks do... but even more so, even with those policies  
in place, it is still possible that artifacts may change, and thus...  
its not a really trustworthy repository of artifacts that we can rely  
upon to have the right artifacts to build past releases off of.

So, to mitigate some of that risk, I setup our components to build  
from source... so that we can always have automated builds running,  
even in interim times like we just say where artifacts have not yet  
propagated to central.... we could have still ensured that the build  
was functional.  But to do that effectively means that some practices  
for component integration need to be followed.


> maybe I'm just being stupid.... but I'm not getting it yet.

No, you are not stupid...

I think my goals are simply a lot different than many others  
regarding these builds.  I want to build a system that can be used to  
run builds 100% of the time regardless of what dependencies are  
propagated into what repo, builds that can be easily distributed  
across nodes and using SNAPSHOT artifact outputs from one build to  
another.  Builds where you can easily run a set of tests on after a  
build and be able to see the entire chain of changes which were  
pulled into a build to correlate test pass/failures back to actual  
changes.

I am close to getting this done... recent work has put some extra  
problems for me to solve though.  But you will be able to run TCK  
tests on a specific CTS build, which was generated from a specific  
server build, and which was using a specific openejb2 build, etc.

Once the specs that have been released make it to central then I can  
fixed up the AH configuration and get back, just lost a few days.

BUT... when it does come a time when a spec needs to be fixed, or a  
new spec is introduced, then expect the automated builds to start  
failing, with missing dependencies if there is no SNAPSHOT  
deployed... and if there is a SNAPSHOT deployed, then start to expect  
that at times build may be using different artifacts for those  
modules... there is no way for me to determine where they came from  
or what specific code they contain.

And specs will change... this does happen... new ones do get added,  
that does happen, bugs are found, license muck might need to change  
again, blah, blah, blah.

I was trying to avoid any automated build breakage when we need to  
make any of those changes to our specs... but I guess I will just  
have to deal with it later when it does happen and shit start  
breaking.  Or maybe I will just leave it broken and let someone else  
fix it... though gut tells me its gonna be me.

--jason

Mime
View raw message