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 01:43:12 GMT
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/

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