David Jencks wrote:
I started looking into cleaning up the build, and of course it is taking
longer than I expected.
I'm seriously hampered by failing tests in a fresh checkout.
There are some projects in application that stop compiling if you
alphabetize the dependencies. It looks like osgi 3 artifacts are
getting on the maven classpath before osgi 4.2 artifacts. Adding
exclusions to the dependencies seems to fix it if you can figure out
where the out of date jars are coming from.
The build is already much closer to a multi-release model than a single
release model.
I've diffed what I have so far and attached it to ARIES-173. It
includes scm info and a lot of version corrections. Due to the failing
tests I'm not too comfortable committing it.
Is anyone else seeing test failures locally?
I occasionally see a build failure due to failing tests (usually
blueprint) and the rerun the build and it will pass. As of yesterday
with r916084 everything was building fine for me locally.
Joe
thanks
david jencks
On Feb 24, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Lin Sun wrote:
Hi David,
It 'd be great if you are willing to fix these build issues, since you
just went through a big release in Geronimo. :)
I know the maven release plugin isn't friendly to use some cases, so
it is best we get these resolved to make our release process a bit
easier.
EBA plugin would be a very nice add-on, if it comes in time with the
release.
Thanks
Lin
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, David Jencks <[email protected]>
wrote:
I would like to understand the problems you see better, but I do not
have
the maven background you guys have, any chance you could explain
what the
problems are, why they are problems and the solution at some point?
The biggest immediate problem is that without correct svn info you
can't do
a release with the release plugin. I'm pretty sure the way its set
up now,
when you try, the tag will be under maven's apache pom, not aries.
(you'll
fail unless you happen to be a maven committer too). You definitely
don't
want to try to do a release without the release plugin.
Organizationally there's no way that for instance blueprint,
application,
and samples should always be released in synchrony. Any time two of
them
happen to be ready for release at the same time it will be purely
accidental. Right now everyone wants to get a milestone out the
door, but
looking at the different projects their state of completion is pretty
much
wildly different. A decision to release all of them at once is not
based in
any way on them being equally complete. I'm suggesting that since build
fixes are needed anyway, why not set up a maintainable structure that
will
continue to work beyond this publicity release. The benefit to users is
that aries will be able to release bits in a timely fashion;
otherwise the
entire project will never be in a releasable state at once. (I'm only
exaggerating a little bit :-)
What got me looking at this at all is what look like wild gyrations that
don't really use maven properly to get an .eba (or some artifact) out
the
door. This might be ok for one release but (a) I think this can be done
directly with the assembly plugin short term and (b) an eba-maven-plugin
seems like the obvious more long term solution.
I'm willing to fix the build and probably work on an eba plugin, but
want to
be sure this is ok with everyone first.
thanks
david jencks
Thanks
Alasdair
On 23 Feb 2010, at 18:18, David Jencks <[email protected]> wrote:
This discussion got me worried enough to take a look at the aries
build.
Now I'm even more worried.
While it might feel good to try to push out a release as fast as
possible
I'd prefer to see a sustainable build system in place first. So
far it
looks to me as if aries is going to be a bunch of loosely coupled
subprojects. Building them all at once is not going to work for
long. I
think we should recognize that and put that in the build system
now. To me
this means:
1. a parent pom that isn't at the root of the svn trunk.
2. each subproject has pom info sufficient so it can be released
(mostly
svn info) (right now this is completely missing everywhere as far
as I can
see, which will result in ares getting tagged into svn as part of
the apache
pom)
We can still have a "fake" pom that builds everything, but it won't be
part of any release procedure.
Having separately released subprojects does not prevent having a
single
vote on all the releases.
I'd suggest a few other pom tweaks such as using resources and
filtered-resources to distinguish when filtering is called for.
In addition relevant to this particular bit of the thread, we need an
eba-maven-plugin to assemble ebas. Getting this into a first
release would
be a great idea IMO.
If there's general agreement I can spend some time playing with the
build
and possibly working on the eba plugin.
thoughts?
thanks
david jencks
On Feb 22, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
Jeremy Hughes wrote:
On 19 February 2010 13:09, Joe Bohn <[email protected]> wrote:
I'd also like to see us release the sample applications but I think
there is
at least one complication. Both Blog Sample and AriesTrader
generate
EBAs
using different techniques - but both leverage the
maven-antrun-plugin
to
finally produce a file of type "eba".
I realised the .eba file generated in the blog-assembly module
wasn't
being pushed into my local repo. I've made some changes to the
pom.xml
in ARIES-198 to fix this. So now it uses antrun to create the .eba
artifact and the build-helper-maven-plugin to push the artifact
to the
local repo. I needed to add NOTICE and LICENSE files to the .eba for
the ianal plugin in the verify phase to succeed.
I've not used the build-helper-maven-plugin before. Do you know
if it
will work with the maven-release-plugin to push the eba artifacts
when we do
a release? If so, then I should look at using the same mechanism for
AriesTrader.
I think the result is that the eba will not be available in a maven
repository.
One of the differences is that AriesTrader first generates a jar
using
the
maven-assembly-plugin and then copies this to an eba. The jar
will be
managed by maven and IIUC it should be deployable as an
"application"
even
with an extension of "jar" rather than "eba". If that is
correct then
perhaps delivery of an application jar is an acceptable approach
for
the 1st
release. Unfortunately I haven't actually setup my equinox
assembly
to
deploy the eba yet - it still deploys all of the individual
bundles.
Using the maven-assembly-plugin likely the preferred approach long
term. Perhaps we could copy the artifact to .eba and use the
build-helper-maven-plugin to remove the .jar artifact from maven
control and add the .eba one?
I can give this a try for AriesTrader. If it doesn't work out - is
there anything wrong with the approach I mentioned earlier of just
using the
jar artifacts rather than the eba artifacts? Will the current
application
support only look at *.eba archives?
Joe
Guillaume Nodet wrote:
I'd like to see at least those included:
* blueprint
* jmx
* jndi
* transaction
I don't think applications are really usable yet and I haven't
really
looked at JPA yet, so can't tell about it.
The transaction component is functional and we've been using it
mostly
unchanged since a long time in ServiceMix.
Do you have any particular concerns with it ? (I'm not talking
about
declarative transactions for blueprint, note).
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 04:19, Joe Bohn <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks for the response (even while on vacation!) ... and for
volunteering
to be the release manager. Your response helps me get a better
picture
of
the plans.
I was really just interested in the general objectives and timing
since
it
hadn't been discussed yet. To get the release out in Feb
means it
will
be
delivered next week. I'm afraid the hill might be a little too
steep to
climb that quickly but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
The more communication the better. It's important to get
everybody
thinking
and planning along the same lines (or understand quickly if there
are any
differences of opinion). Knowing that you are thinking of
creating
a
release candidate next week means that we should be getting more
restrictive
on new content to avoid any unpleasant surprises.
I don't have any strong opinions on what should be in or out -
but
in
general it doesn't make sense to release things that aren't
functional.
At
the moment I'm not sure what those are - but I suspect not all of
the
components are fully functional yet (for example transaction).
Best Regards,
Joe
Jeremy Hughes wrote:
Hi Joe, sorry I started setting myself up tuesday but am now
out on
vacation until monday.
Personally, I think the 0.1 release should serve to get what we
have
right now in the respectable form the ASF requires. So 'must
haves'
are to get the build in the right shape to create the
distribution
files that are acceptable to the IPMC. I think each main area of
the
code deserves at least a README to describe what's possible.
Since
this is the first release there are likely a few unknowns -
w.r.t
timing I hope/expect to get the release out this in feb. If
there
are
particular JIRAs or other issues you feel should be included
please
say. I'd like to rename the current JIRA version 1.0 to 0.1 and
target
issues for 0.1 appropriately and issues not for 0.1 to target
a new
0.2 version. WDYT?
Cheers,
Jeremy
On 18 February 2010 15:39, Joe Bohn <[email protected]> wrote:
Jeremy,
What are your current thoughts and goals regarding the
release and
potential
target dates?
I think it would be good if you could summarize your
thoughts in
an
email
or
perhaps on a page in the wiki that we can keep updated as we
make
progress.
Of particular interest would be the content that we would
like to
see
in
the first release (clarifying what we consider "must have" from
"nice
to
have"), the current status of that content, target dates for
the
release,
and the process that we plan to use to generate the release.
Thanks,
Joe
Jeremy Hughes wrote:
On 12 February 2010 09:39, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]>
wrote:
Great, thanks a lot. Let us know if you need any help.
I guess if you take some notes, it would be interesting to
put
those
on the wiki.
Certainly will. It's been a while since I did one and the
process
has
changed quite a bit :-)
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:32, Jeremy Hughes
<[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi Kevan, thanks. I volunteer to be release manager.
Jeremy
On 11 February 2010 16:38, Kevan Miller
<[email protected]>
wrote:
Sounds like the consensus is for a release with all
components
at a
0.1
version number. Best to start with a simple versioning
scheme,
IMO.
Personally, I don't view a 0.1 blueprint release as an
issue.
Showing the ability to generate an Apache release is an
important
step
for the community. Would definitely like to see this
happen...
We'll need a release manager. Any volunteers?
--kevan
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com
--
Joe
--
Joe
--
Joe
--
Joe
--
Joe
