tuscany-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Florian Moga <moga....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Minimum standards for released samples
Date Thu, 07 Apr 2011 11:39:02 GMT
The checklist is looking good until now. I think that if we want to enforce
a consistent feel over the samples we should agree on build tool,
dependencies and launcher before considering the checklist final.

I would say let's stick with Maven for now, Apache Ant adds complexity and
requires time to find an elegant way of writing a script which we don't
afford now.

As for how dependencies are declared, you've got much more experience with
Tuscany to weight the pros and cons for each approach but I think we should
use the one we consider best practice and present that to the user. For me
base+extensions seems to be the way to go as it looks more loosely coupled
and there's been the big effort of adding that in Beta1.

Regarding the launcher, I have already expressed my opinion a couple of
times but haven't seen any comments so I guess we're fine with the shell?


On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Simon Nash <nash@apache.org> wrote:

> Florian Moga wrote:
>> I'm +1 for having a set of standard requirements for the samples to be
>> promoted to trunk and released. That's why I started the samples checklist
>> wiki page in the first place.
>> However, I don't think we need another two month long thread in order to
>> determine which these standards should be. We already had this discussion
>> and we can just summarize it.
> I've updated the samples wiki page by adding a "Checklist" section
> which is my attempt to write down what's expected (at a minimum)
> for samples that are in the trunk.  There's some overlap between this
> and the preceding text but I didn't feel comfortable attempting a
> merge at this stage.
> I've used the term "expected" rather than something like "mandatory
> requirements" because (as Ant has pointed out) there isn't any
> mechanism for policing or enforcing this.
> I've made the checklist as short as I think it can be.  This means
> that it doesn't contain any details of how the samples are built
> (maven, ant, base + extension, pom or jar dependency) or run (shell,
> maven Tuscany plugin, ant, etc.)  I think it would be worth discussing
> how prescriptive we want to be about these aspects, and anything else
> that people think should be added (or subtracted).
> Comments?
>  Simon
>  As I mentioned before on the other thread, I'm fine with doing the release
>> only with getting-started/ samples. With that in mind, I would say we
>> shouldn't delay 2.0-Beta3 any more. It's a minor release anyway and most
>> importantly users need the runtime code released. So I'm +1 for releasing
>> 2.0-Beta3 now.
>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 12:34 AM, Simon Nash <nash@apache.org <mailto:
>> nash@apache.org>> wrote:
>>    ant elder wrote:
>>        On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Simon Nash <nash@apache.org
>>        <mailto:nash@apache.org>> wrote:
>>            Following on from the discussion in [1], I'd like to establish
>>            whether or not the Tuscany developer community agrees that we
>>            should have some minimum standards for a sample to be part
>>            of trunk
>>            and be delivered in a released binary distribution.
>>            If there's agreement that we should establish this principle
>> and
>>            have some minimum standards, I'll start another discussion
>>            thread
>>            on what those minimum standards should be.
>>            I am +1 that we should have some minimum standards for a
>>            sample to be
>>            in trunk and to be released as part of the binary distribution.
>>             Simon
>>            [1]
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/tuscany-dev/201104.mbox/%3C4D9B41C8.50001@apache.org%3E
>>        I'm -1 Simon. That doesn't mean I think we should have rubbish
>>        samples, i just think the time spent rehashing this again would be
>>        better spent actually writing some samples and documentation. We've
>>        just spent two months debating the finer points of how to do
>> samples
>>        and ended up with just 3 in trunk which not even everyone is
>>        completely happy with. We do have a clearer understanding now of
>>        what
>>        people think but now we need to just get on and do some.
>>        The Apache process is clear -  it takes three +1s to do a
>>        release - it
>>        doesn't matter what rules happen to have been come up here in this
>>        thread  6 months down the road if there is a release with a sample
>>        that doesn't work but the release gets the votes then that is fine.
>>        Tuscany is the hardest project I know of in Apache to do
>>        releases, and
>>        i've seen a lot of Apache projects. The actual build process takes
>>        ages and then we drag it out for ages before people will vote
>>        and seem
>>        to make it obligatory to redo it several times over before
>>        people will
>>        vote +1. Thats shooting ourselves in the foot IMHO and instead of
>>        looking for more rules to make it even harder to get a release
>>        out it
>>        would be better to look for ways to get people to be more willing
>> to
>>        promptly vote for releases. We'd get more releases much more
>>        often and
>>        then whats the big deal if some new sample slips through with a
>>        bug if
>>        it can be fixed in the next release which is only a short time
>> away.
>>        2.x has taken a long time and trunk had got a bit full up of
>> samples
>>        that had been broken with all the refactoring and changes, we've
>>        taken
>>        all those out now and things are much more stable so if we're a
>>        little
>>        be diligent when adding samples now things should remain in better
>>        shape.
>>          ...ant
>>    Actually it should be easier / quicker to do releases if the trunk
>>    samples meet a reasonable quality standard and are kept working on
>>    an ongoing basis.  Also, having some criteria for which samples are
>>    included in trunk would mean that we can release the trunk contents
>>    at any time without needing to debate which samples should be in the
>>    release and removing those that are unsuitable.
>>     Simon

View raw message