incubator-easyant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Siddhartha Purkayastha <kpsiddha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Continunuous integration and repository management
Date Thu, 07 Jul 2011 15:03:50 GMT
Some additional thoughts:

Single Repository will be less confusing to the user. Flip side of having a
single repository will be that there will be nothing to prevent someone from
injecting a dependency of the core on non-Apache compliant plug-ins
inadvertently. Having a separate Apache repository will enforce this
restriction.

For CI, I think we should follow Apache conventions to the extent possible.
In any case, non-apache compliant plug-ins such as checkstyle etc can not be
considered a part of 'Apache EasyAnt' offerings.

As I understand, there is also the need to maintain the sources for plug-ins
that are *non-apache*. For such plug-ins, separate source repositories will
be needed. These will be outside the purview of Apache. So it may also be
possible that in the future, rights to develop on and build such plug-ins
may vest on people of the larger community independent of the Apache EasyAnt
dev team. As such, it may be helpful to have a clear separation between
Apache and non-Apache sources, builds and resultant artifacts.

Just to point out - if we are to use builds.apache.org, we will need EasyAnt
installed on the build machines. I think that should not be a problem
though.

Thanks,
Siddhartha

On 6 July 2011 15:09, Jean-Louis Boudart <jeanlouis.boudart@gmail.com>wrote:

> 2011/7/5 Stefan Bodewig <bodewig@apache.org>
>
> > On 2011-07-04, Jean-Louis Boudart wrote:
> >
> > > We'll need to setup tons of jobs, one for core and then one for each
> > plugins
> > > as it could be released independently. I thought i was easier for all
> to
> > > have one place for both apache-compatible and non compatible stuff.
> >
> > Understood.
> >
> > > I feel confortable if we choose to use builds.apache.org for
> > easyant-core
> > > and core plugins, but in any case we need to have a second CI server
> for
> > > other plugins  which could not be hosted @apache.org (such as
> > checkstyle,
> > > sonar etc...)
> >
> > Sounds good to me.
> >
>
> Let's turn this in a more formal vote :
>
> Do we agree that we need one "repository" for both apache / non-apache
> plugins ?  see http://repository.easyant.org
> [ ] YES
> [ ] NO
>
>
> Then for CI we have two options :
> [ ] Option 1 : Have one CI server  to build everything related to easyant
> such as core, examples, plugins (including apache ones and non apache ones)
> [ ] Option 2 : Have two distinct CI server. All Apache stuff (core +
> examples + apache plugins) could use http://builds.apache.org. For the
> rest
> (plugins non compatible with apache license for example) could use
> http://builds.easyant.org.
>
> Things to take in consideration :
> Easyant is builded with easyant itself, all plugins required to build
> easyant will be fetched from a repository (http://repository.easyant.org?)
> this applies to both options.
>
> When we release easyant we will create an easyant distribution this
> includes
> ant + ivy + easyant-core + a set of common plugins for standard case. Like
> for others apache deliverable the good host to make it accessible is
> http://dist.apache.org.
> If we choose Option 1 we will need to keep in mind that the easyant
> distribution deliverable needs to be published on http://dist.apache.org.
>
> Which option do you prefer ?
>
>
> --
> Jean Louis Boudart
> Independent consultant
> Apache EasyAnt commiter
> http://incubator.apache.org/easyant/<http://incubat.apache.org/easyant/>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message