incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Fw: [VOTE] Graduate ACE from the Apache Incubator
Date Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:02:43 GMT
Shipping tests is not a formal requirement of a release.
httpd certainly doesn't offer its test suite as part of
a release- you have to download that (from svn) yourself.



----- Original Message -----
> From: sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
> Cc: 
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 10:59 AM
> Subject: Re: Fw: [VOTE] Graduate ACE from the Apache Incubator
> 
> On 21 November 2011 15:48, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  ----- Forwarded Message -----
>>> From: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
>>> To: Karl Pauls <karlpauls@gmail.com>; 
> "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
>>> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 10:44 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Graduate ACE from the Apache Incubator
>>> 
>>> 
>>> "Hard to build" isn't a blocking criterion
>>> for a release; so long as the artifacts can
>>> be built from the distributed source files
>>> using a repeatable and documented process you
>>> are ok in my book.  Downloading a pom from
>>> an ASF mirror or from maven central doesn't
>>> appearon the surface to be contradicting
>>> what Iwrote in the first sentence here.
>>> 
>>> ("Downloading" from svn.a.o would be a problem
>>> tho.)
> 
> That is the case for the JUnit tests, which are not included in the
> source jars as far as I can tell.
> 
>>> 
>>> In any case, if you can make building from
>>> source more convenient for end-users, that
>>> would certainly count as an improvement.
>>> But holding up graduation until that is
>>> 
>>> actually done makes zero sense to me.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>  From: Karl Pauls <karlpauls@gmail.com>
>>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer 
> <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 10:38 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Graduate ACE from the Apache Incubator
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Joe Schaefer 
> <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>  I'm confused.  In /dist/incubator/ace/, there appears
>>>>>  to be an *.incubator-sources.* file for each independent
>>>>>  module in the release.  Are those not actually what they
>>>>>  are advertised to be?  What exactly is the problem with
>>>>>  the previous release?
>>>> 
>>>> It has been argued that they are hard to build because they 
> don't
>>>> contain the pom files (they are in the dist dir too, but as another
>>>> download). We forgot to configure that in the build. Typically, we
>>>> make it so that the source artifacts contain the pom as well so all
>>>> you have to do is to unzip the source distro of a module, cd into 
> it,
>>>> and mvn clean install. In this case, you have to download the pom
>>>> first as
>>  well.
>>>> 
>>>> regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Karl
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>  From: Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org>
>>>>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 10:23 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Graduate ACE from the Apache Incubator
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Karl Pauls 
> <karlpauls@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 4:11 PM, ant elder 
> <ant.elder@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>  > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Richard S. Hall 
> <heavy@ungoverned.org>
>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>  >> On 11/21/11 09:41 , ant elder wrote:
>>>>>>>  >>>
>>>>>>>  >>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Karl 
> Pauls<karlpauls@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>   wrote:
>>>>>>>  >>>>
>>>>>>>  >>>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:08 PM, ant 
> elder<antelder@apache.org>
>>>>>>>   wrote:
>>>>>>>  >>>>>
>>>>>>>  >>>>> Well IMHO i don't think this 
> release demonstrates that the poddling
>>>>>>>  >>>>> has an understanding of making or 
> reviewing ASF releases and thats
>>>>>>>  the
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  point of requiring releases during incubation.
>>>>>>>  >>>>
>>>>>>>  >>>> So you want us to do a new release? 
> Fine, whatever, we can just roll a
>>>>>>>  >>>> new release which has the source 
> distribution configured. That was a
>>>>>>>  >>>> mistake in the first place as it makes 
> the bundles not easily
>>>>>>>  >>>> individually buildable.
>>>>>>>  >>>>
>>>>>>>  >>>> However, we still will not have a 
> combined source release as we want
>>>>>>>  >>>> to be able to release our bundles 
> individually. Is that the resolution
>>>>>>>  >>>> then? All we have to do is a do a 
> micro release with the source
>>>>>>>  >>>> distribution configured on a per 
> artifact level?
>>>>>>>  >>>>
>>>>>>>  >>> I agree the requirement for
>>  a single source release doesn't seem
>>>>>>>  >>> totally clear, I've said I think you 
> should have one and so has sebb,
>>>>>>>  >>> it would be good to hear what other 
> Incubator PMC people think. I
>>>>>>>  >>> think you need one for two main reasons:
>>>>>>>  >>>
>>>>>>>  >>> 1) The ASF deals with source and the 
> releases are how users get hold
>>>>>>>  >>> of that source. If a user is going to do 
> development with the released
>>>>>>>  >>> ACE source they likely aren't going to 
> be able to do very much useful
>>>>>>>  >>> with just single things like 
> org.apache.ace.repository.imp. At the
>>>>>>>  >>> very least they're probably going to 
> want
>>>>>>>  >>> org.apache.ace.repository.api too but 
> likely there is a big network of
>>>>>>>  >>> the 60 something ACE modules that anyone
>>  doing most non-trivial ACE
>>>>>>>  >>> development is going to want. One source 
> distribution makes this easy,
>>>>>>>  >>> making them have to download them all 
> separately isn't particularly
>>>>>>>  >>> practical. That 
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ace/trunk/
>>>>>>>  >>> is structured so the ASF committers can 
> work with them as one single
>>>>>>>  >>> buildable checkout i think shows thats 
> true.
>>>>>>>  >>>
>>>>>>>  >>> 2) If there is only individually buildable 
> source for each jar how are
>>>>>>>  >>> people really going to verify that the 
> release is actually buildable
>>>>>>>  >>> and the artifacts match the SVN tag source 
> when reviewing and voting
>>>>>>>  >>> on release votes? No one reviewing
>>  is really likely to download 60
>>>>>>>  >>> separate distros and build them all one by 
> one are they?
>>>>>>>  >>
>>>>>>>  >> I disagree. There seems to be some 
> misunderstanding that there is one
>>>>>>>  single
>>>>>>>  >> product that must be built.
>>>>>>>  >>
>>>>>>>  >> When you develop independently evolving 
> modules, "big bang" releases do
>>>>>>>  not
>>>>>>>  >> make sense. Each module has its own release 
> cycle. Occasionally you may
>>>>>>>  end
>>>>>>>  >> up creating some sort of 
> "distribution" out of the modules and release
>>>>>>>  that,
>>>>>>>  >> but that is just one potential distribution.
>>>>>>>  >>
>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>  > I agree thats an approach used and works in many 
> projects but if that
>>>>>>>  > was really the case _here_  then surely the
>>  SVN would be structured so
>>>>>>>  > that there were separate trunk/branch/tag folders 
> for each module,
>>>>>>>  > there would have been more releases than just the 
> single 0.8.0
>>>>>>>  > release, and there would be separate release votes 
> for each module
>>>>>>>  > being released.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  We have a tag per module and that is enough. 
> Furthermore, we do
>>>>>>>  combine several modules if it makes sense (i.e., we 
> want to release
>>>>>>>  them at the same time) in one vote as it would 
> otherwise create a lot
>>>>>>>  of extra traffic. That's all. It is the same set-up 
> some of the other
>>>>>>>  OSGi projects at the asf have (I did quite a lot of 
> their releases).
>>>>>>>  The only thing we missed was the source distributions 
> per artifact.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And that IMHO is not enough to consider the release a 
> failure. Let it
>>  be
>>>>>> noted and corrected for future releases. AFAIC there's 
> no reason to hold
>>>>>> this podling back because of some minor release 
> inconsistencies which are
>>>>>> natural as we shift from monolithic products to component 
> based OSGi
>>>>>> products.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Karl Pauls
>>>> karlpauls@gmail.com
>>>> http://twitter.com/karlpauls
>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/karlpauls
>>>> https://profiles.google.com/karlpauls
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>  For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>> 
>> 
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message