incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Fw: [VOTE] Graduate ACE from the Apache Incubator
Date Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:59:35 GMT
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