karaf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guillaume Nodet <gno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: release by subsystem
Date Wed, 13 Mar 2013 07:55:08 GMT
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 3:16 AM, Andrei Pozolotin <
andrei.pozolotin@gmail.com> wrote:

>  Guillaume
>
> what you say sounds like
> ""3.x is dead on arrival, and Red Hat will support only 2.x development".
>


> can you please make some kind of "official" statement?
>

That's not really what I'm saying.  And any statement I make would only
reflect my feelings, not my employer official position.

What I really mean is that all our users are using 2.x and quite happy with
it, so it will take time before 3.x is heavily used in production.  And
we'll have to support the 2.x branch for a long time anyway.
The main problem I have is that atm I don't see anything in 3.x that is
incentive enough to switch at the cost of stabilising and maintaining a
brand new branch.  I consider 2.x stable and good, so I'd rather spend my
time on stuff I consider more important (mainly fabric those days).


> I do not care either way, just want to know where to focus efforts.
>

Yes, and I do understand that.  I'm not a fortune teller.  It's a chicken
and egg problem: 3.x isn't much used, so it's not being stabilised, which
does not help adoption ... I think having a first RC on trunk will
definitely help people trying it and stabilising, but I think it will still
be months before 3.x is really stable production ready.

For your actual problem, what you could do is try to evaluate how much it
would cost to switch back to a stable 2.x branch and weight that with the
cost of helping stabilising it.

>
>
> Andrei
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: release by subsystem
> From: Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@gmail.com> <gnodet@gmail.com>
> To: Andrei Pozolotin <andrei.pozolotin@gmail.com><andrei.pozolotin@gmail.com>
> Cc: "Jamie G." <jamie.goodyear@gmail.com> <jamie.goodyear@gmail.com>,
> "dev@karaf.apache.org" <dev@karaf.apache.org> <dev@karaf.apache.org><dev@karaf.apache.org>
> Date: Tue 12 Mar 2013 08:43:12 PM CDT
>
>
>
>  On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Andrei Pozolotin <
> andrei.pozolotin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  Guillaume:
>>
>> no, snapshots are no good.
>>
>> explanation:
>>
>> we were trying to run in semi-production mode on karaf 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT for
>> last 6 month or so.
>>
>> problematic patterns:
>>
>> 1) some snapshots are good, some are really bad - karaf not even start
>> 2) daily snapshot pull is too much toll on developers - waste of time
>> 3) there is no easy way to go back to find out what/where was good /
>> revert to last known good.
>>
>
>  That's the problem with automated builds.  Having automated monthly RCs
> would not help in any way.
> What you're looking for is stability, not automated builds.
>
>
>>
>> issue at hand:
>>
>> this used to work some 3 months back, but broken now:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KARAF-2180
>>
>> now you will cut RC1, with this bug baked in,
>> and then I have to wait for next 2 years to get RC2 :-)
>> I do not mind the bug, I mind 2 year wait / lack of periodic RC freeze.
>>
>> example from another project:
>> netty is not afraid to release 8 alphas and 2 betas in 6 month
>> http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cga%7C1%7Cnetty
>>
>> I am not asking you to be an Oracle and release java every day,
>> but can you please be Google with their monthly chrome releases? :-)
>>
>
>  The real problem with 3.x is lack of focus from the community, nothing
> else.  It's not a technical problem: trying to do more releases won't help,
> as the problem is really to focus on those releases.
> And again, this stability / release problem is not really present on 2.x
> branches.
> Btw, what features in 3.x were important to you so that you choose to use
> this version instead of 2.x ? One possibility may be to backport those to
> 2.4.x branch ...
>
>
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> Andrei.
>>
>>
>>  -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: release by subsystem
>> From: Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@gmail.com> <gnodet@gmail.com>
>>   To: Jamie G. <jamie.goodyear@gmail.com> <jamie.goodyear@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Andrei Pozolotin <andrei.pozolotin@gmail.com><andrei.pozolotin@gmail.com>,
>> "dev@karaf.apache.org" <dev@karaf.apache.org> <dev@karaf.apache.org><dev@karaf.apache.org>
>> Date: Tue 12 Mar 2013 07:33:49 PM CDT
>>
>> I actually fail to see what you're looking for Andrei.  We have nightly
>> builds already.  Aren't those sufficient ?
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Jamie G. <jamie.goodyear@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> RC's are a tagged and signed entity that are released from Apache -
>>> that requires a vote. The nightly snapshot builds are available for
>>> integration purposes in the mean time.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jamie
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Andrei Pozolotin
>>>  <andrei.pozolotin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Jamie:
>>> >
>>> > cant you make a case that RC is not really a release?
>>> >
>>> > Andrei
>>> >
>>> > -------- Original Message --------
>>> > Subject: Re: release by subsystem
>>> > From: Jamie G. <jamie.goodyear@gmail.com>
>>> > To: dev@karaf.apache.org
>>> > Cc: Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@gmail.com>
>>> > Date: Tue 12 Mar 2013 07:24:53 PM CDT
>>> >
>>> > Sorry for jumping in here,
>>> >
>>> > Apache builds require approval before release:
>>> > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
>>> >
>>> > As to release schedule, that's purely at the discretion of the
>>> > community to my best understanding.
>>> >
>>> > Cheers,
>>> > Jamie
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Andrei Pozolotin
>>> > <andrei.pozolotin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Guillaume:
>>> >
>>> > how about automatic, once a month, karaf RC-XXX release, w/o vote?
>>> >
>>> > Andrei.
>>> >
>>> > -------- Original Message --------
>>> > Subject: Re: release by subsystem
>>> > From: Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@gmail.com>
>>> > To: dev@karaf.apache.org <dev@karaf.apache.org>
>>> > Date: Tue 12 Mar 2013 06:24:24 PM CDT
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Andrei Pozolotin <
>>> > andrei.pozolotin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >     *Jean-Baptiste, Łukasz**
>>> >     *
>>> >     FYI:
>>> >
>>> >     1) I released a jenkins plugin which allows incremental cascaded
>>> >     releases from any level of dependency tree:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Maven+Cascade+Release+Plugin
>>> >
>>> > Thx for the heads up.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >     2) I hope you can switch away from monolithic releases and release
>>> >     karaf modules/subsystems on demand and often.
>>> >
>>> > Releasing karaf is fairly easy, and we rarely are waiting for third
>>> party
>>> > dependencies.
>>> > When that happens, it's mostly because we have bugs waiting to be
>>> fixed.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >     3) IIRC,  the first time "3.0.0.RC1 will come out in 2 weeks"  was
>>> >     promised on this mailing list about 2 years back :-)
>>> >
>>> > And this has nothing to do with the release process.  Technically
>>> speaking,
>>> > trunk or branches are mostly always in a releasable state.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >     Thank you,
>>> >
>>> >     Andrei
>>> >
>>> > -------- Original Message --------
>>> > Subject: Re: release by subsystem
>>> > From: Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb@nanthrax.net>
>>> > To: dev@karaf.apache.org
>>> > Date: Thu 07 Feb 2013 02:26:10 PM CST
>>> >
>>> > Hi Andrei,
>>> >
>>> > I understand your point.
>>> >
>>> > Some parts are really tight together. However, that's the purpose of
>>> > the minimal distribution and framework:
>>> >
>>> > - framework should provide the most minimal Karaf container (however,
>>> > it embeds Aries Blueprint for instance, as Karaf bundles use it)
>>> > - minimal is a very lightweight Karaf container, the purpose is to let
>>> > the user create a custom distribution on top of that.
>>> >
>>> > I'm listening all proposals to improve these distributions !
>>> >
>>> > Regards
>>> > JB
>>> >
>>> > On 02/07/2013 05:30 PM, Andrei Pozolotin wrote:
>>> >
>>> >      *Jean-Baptiste*
>>> >
>>> >      I am curious if you envision to change karaf layout so release by
>>> >      subsystem is possible.
>>> >
>>> >      For example, if I use minimal sub set of karaf, which does not
>>> need
>>> >      Aries, why should I wait for it?
>>> >
>>> >      this is similar to how ops4j was partitioned way back, so there
>>> are
>>> >      no monolithic Godzilla releases any more.
>>> >
>>> >      Thank you,
>>> >
>>> >      Andrei
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>> ------------------------
>> Guillaume Nodet
>> ------------------------
>> Red Hat, Open Source Integration
>>
>>  Email: gnodet@redhat.com
>> Web: http://fusesource.com
>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>  --
> ------------------------
> Guillaume Nodet
> ------------------------
> Red Hat, Open Source Integration
>
>  Email: gnodet@redhat.com
> Web: http://fusesource.com
> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>
>
>


-- 
------------------------
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Red Hat, Open Source Integration

Email: gnodet@redhat.com
Web: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/

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