On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Bram de Kruijff <bdekrui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 3:48 PM, ant elder <antel...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Bram de Kruijff <bdekrui...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 2:33 PM, ant elder <antel...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Bram de Kruijff <bdekrui...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:11 AM, ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Karl Pauls <karlpa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Marcel Offermans
>>>>>>> <marcel.offerm...@luminis.nl> wrote:
>>>>>>>> +1, I think providing such a script is a good way to do it, it makes
>>>>>>>> checking and building the individual components a lot easier whilst
>>>>>>>> still maintaining the flexibility of being able to release any subset
>>>>>>>> of artifacts. I also agree that we should correct the oversight of not
>>>>>>>> shipping the pom.xml file as part of the source distribution for
>>>>>>>> future releases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, again, that is just a configuration we have to set so that it
>>>>>>> not only generates the -sources.jar but also the -project.{zip,tar.gz}
>>>>>>> just like we do at felix. Without that (and there I totally agree with
>>>>>>> ant and sebb on this one), it sucks rocks as you have to massage the
>>>>>>> stuff quite a bit to get it to work and don't even have the tests,
>>>>>>> etc. :-(.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think having the -projects plus the two scripts are a good way to go
>>>>>>> (technically, its close to releasing the reactor pom - which would be
>>>>>>> even easier - but this way, we don't have to tag the trunk).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If having the reactor pom would be even easier then why not do that?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not that simple, cause the reactor does not know about versions.
>>>>> You could just zip the entire subversion, but this is not how these
>>>>> projects our structured as each module in principle has it's own
>>>>> life-cycle. For the same reason that tagging the entire trunk does not
>>>>> make sense it would not make sense to release the infrastructural pom.
>>>>> True, ACE still uses a global version, but just look at Apache Felix
>>>>> and Sling and you'll know what I mean. IMHO, and I'm not an Apache
>>>>> person, the whole idea of having 1 release(version) is kind of
>>>>> artificial and antiquated. I can see why you need something like that
>>>>> as a promotion criteria for incubator, but at the same time you need
>>>>> to understand how these projects are structured and accept the fact
>>>>> that there is not one version to rule them all.
>>>>>
>>>>>> This isn't just about making it possible for reviewers to easily build
>>>>>> the release when voting its about having a source release that you can
>>>>>> actually use to do development on the code. If you don't release the
>>>>>> recator pom then for example how do you set up the source in a IDE -
>>>>>> you'd have to manually go into each artifact any type something like
>>>>>> mvn eclipse:eclipse, and even then that would give isolated eclipse
>>>>>> projects so IDE refactoring wouldn't go across the projects and IDE
>>>>>> changes in one project wouldn't be picked up until after a maven build
>>>>>> was done and the projects refreshed, so really not a very practical
>>>>>> approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think this is a valid argument. This is how Maven releases
>>>>> work and it provides great support for developer that work against a
>>>>> released artifact. I declare a dependency to ace-something version
>>>>> x.y, my IDE dowloads the jar, the javadoc, the sources and I'm happy.
>>>>> There is no good support for setting up a full ace development
>>>>> environment from the Maven repository, because that's not how it
>>>>> intended to work. You use SCM to checkout project sources that you
>>>>> want to develop on, import them into your IDE and make all the magic
>>>>> work. You can't blame ACE for the fact that standard tools don't
>>>>> support a use-case that nobody actually needs... I think the principle
>>>>> thing here is that, even if the subversion dies in a nuclear attack,
>>>>> you could do it from these release artifacts.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So i think what you're saying is that a full source release isn't
>>>> needed because there is an SVN tag for the release which has
>>>> everything you need if you want to do ACE development. Is that what
>>>> you mean?
>>>
>>> Not exactly what I was trying to say :)
>>>
>>> There is (and should be) a full source release for all release
>>> artifacts (for that particular version) based on the standard Maven
>>> -sources and related artifacts in the release repository. Together
>>> these contain all information needed to be able to setup development
>>> in any IDE and yes it will require some manual labor or a shell script
>>> or whatever.
>>>
>>> But IMHO you cant attack that with a ease-of-use argument cause nobody
>>> (outside this particular audit case) will ever do it like that in real
>>> world development. If so there would be support for it already and if
>>> Apache still thinks it should be supported by all means let's start a
>>> mavenrepository2myIDE project. I personally think it's a bad idea
>>> though, because you still will end up with a filesystem layout mapping
>>> to different tags/version. Again, look at Apache Felix or Apache Sling
>>> and try to imagine how a full source release for these types of
>>> project would look like when mapped to SCM and then think of the
>>> usefulness...
>>>
>>
>> Apache Sling does do exactly whats been asked for - go to
>> http://sling.apache.org/site/downloads.cgi and see the "Sling Source
>> Package".
>
> Yes, and to me (as a non apache non sling member who does not whishes
> to offend anyway) it illustrates a couple of things....
>
> 1) They took a creative approach to the problem I illustrated by using
> svn:externals to link it all together. See [0].
> 2) They do not in anyway advocate the use of this package to
> developers (because it make no sense), but refer to svn for a proper
> co. See [1].
> 3) They have abandoned the practice since (ecause it make no sense)
> abd have not updated that initial package. See [2]
>
> Actually, just guessing here, but from the the looks of it I think
> someone was arguing they had to do it for graduation and thus did it
> to end the debate ;) Notice how that tag was made more then a year
> after the initial 6 tag.
Interesting guess ;-). However, it does make sense for sling as its
also a product. There is one thing (sling) you eventually want to run
so there is some justification to follow the eclipse "big bang
release" model. I'm not a big fan of it but oh well. Now, the same
could be true for ace at one point but I don't think we are there just
yet. Plus, if we are at that point, I still would prefer outside
people that want to do it as a product putting together our modules in
the way they like and call it a product based on ace rather then us
doing a big bang release with one version.
regards,
Karl
> grz
> Bram
>
> [0] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/sling/tags/sling-6-source-release/
> [1] http://sling.apache.org/site/getting-and-building-sling.html
> [2] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/sling/tags/
>
>> ...ant
>>
>
--
Karl Pauls
karlpa...@gmail.com
http://twitter.com/karlpauls
http://www.linkedin.com/in/karlpauls
https://profiles.google.com/karlpauls
