incubator-bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Olemis Lang <ole...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #161: Install fails when trac-hacks is down
Date Wed, 05 Dec 2012 16:04:35 GMT
On 12/5/12, Ryan Ollos <ryan.ollos@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Apache Bloodhound <
> bloodhound-dev@incubator.apache.org> wrote:
>
>> #161: Install fails when trac-hacks is down
>> ------------------------+-----------------------
>>   Reporter:  jdreimann  |      Owner:  gjm
>>       Type:  defect     |     Status:  closed
>>   Priority:  critical   |  Milestone:  Release 3
>>  Component:  installer  |    Version:
>> Resolution:  fixed      |   Keywords:
>> ------------------------+-----------------------
>>
>> Comment (by olemis):
>>
>>  jftr
>>
>>  Replying to [comment:14 rjollos]:
>>  [...]
>>  > This had me thinking as to whether the older eggs would be retained on
>>  PyPI, and even if they aren't, setuptools will probably just go out and
>>  grab the latest version from PyPI, right? I wasn't sure if this had been
>>  given much thought already, and whether we might want more explicit
>>  control over the version being installed.
>>
>>  Files uploaded to PyPI will remain there for a while ;) . There should
>> be
>>  a way in requirements file to make pip install a particular version from
>>  PyPI.
>
>
> That seems to depend on whether the developer chooses to leave the older
> packages on PyPI. TracAccountManager was released to version 0.4 last week,
> and the 0.3.2 package is no longer available on PyPI (1), as far as I can
> see.
>

You are absolutely right .

> I've just setup a new development environment following the instructions
> (2), and not surprisingly TracAccountManager 0.4 is now installed. I tend
> to think we should have more control over the upgrade of plugins, even for
> the development environment. There was an issue (3) discovered and resolved
> shortly after it's release that would likely have bit us.
>

:'(

> There seem to be two issues here:
>  1. Specifying the version in requirements.txt, which appears to be
> straightforward (4).
>  2. Keeping the older packages available for all of the plugins we depend
> on as newer versions of those packages are released, in order to give us
> time to evaluate the new version and upgrade bloodhound in a controlled
> manner.
>

+1
all this is needed , yes .

-- 
Regards,

Olemis.

Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/
Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/

Featured article:

Mime
View raw message