river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Firmstone <j...@zeus.net.au>
Subject Re: build mechanisms
Date Fri, 14 Jan 2011 23:29:02 GMT
It sounds like we need to re-discuss how we use svn for River's development.

I'd like to wait until Patricia returns, so we've got everyone on board 
and we all have the opportunity to reconsider the development process.

The following is my current understanding of River's development process:

After I had been coding directly in the trunk, and we found there were 
issues in doing so for a team of developers, it was my understanding 
that experimental work could be performed in skunk, then when code had 
some peer review, was ready etc, it could be merged back into trunk.

Minor changes or patches and bug fixes can be committed to trunk with 
peer review.

Trunk is the stable branch used for release branches, in order to 
capture all the patches and bug fixes that are submitted to Jira issues etc.

To cut the next release, I will branch the current trunk, I will rely on 
the JIRA system to generate the release notes, it won't be based on the 
previous release branch.

It is also worth noting that Sim has done significant work getting 
Hudson running on all the different platforms that River supports, I 
understand the frustration seeing us reorganising the source tree in 
skunk, since a lot of this work might have to be done again.

We need to maintain the current trunk build, it will be used for the 
next release, this in itself will be a significant achievement, your 
work will not be wasted.

There are a number of modular build systems:
Ivy + Ant

I personally haven't made a choice about which build system is the most 
suitable, I was glad to hear from Dennis that we're not tied into any 
particular build system, that the new directory structure was common 
among Maven and Gradle (I'm not sure about Ivy + Ant, but it probably 
is), allowing us the flexibility of change.

However it is worth mentioning, that the modular build in its current 
form is still an experiment and should be viewed as such until it has 
had peer review and acceptance by the community.


Sim IJskes - QCG wrote:
> On 14-01-11 13:04, Dan Creswell wrote:
>> Okay, have we got a stable branch currently?
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/river/jtsk/branches/2.1/
> Should be it. We have derived release tags 2.1.1. and 2.1.2 from it.
> Gr. Sim
>> On 14 January 2011 11:47, Sim IJskes - QCG<sim@qcg.nl>  wrote:
>>> On 14-01-11 12:25, Tom Hobbs wrote:
>>>> As a community we have gotten into the habit of making changes in the
>>>> trunk, which is probably a mistake.  Given that we're (hopefully)
>>>> graduating soon we should probably be making more of an effort to
>>>> attaching patches to Jira items and branching.
>>> I'm all for development on the trunk. Stabilisation can take place in a
>>> branch.
>>> Gr. Sim
>>> -- 
>>> QCG, Software voor het MKB, 071-5890970, http://www.qcg.nl
>>> Quality Consultancy Group b.v., Leiderdorp, Kvk Den Haag: 28088397

View raw message