Author: zoe
Date: Wed Feb 9 14:56:02 2011
New Revision: 785078
Log:
Discussion page
Added:
websites/production/aries/content/development/branches_and_modules.png
- copied unchanged from r785077,
websites/staging/aries/trunk/content/development/branches_and_modules.png
websites/production/aries/content/development/release_by_module.png
- copied unchanged from r785077,
websites/staging/aries/trunk/content/development/release_by_module.png
Modified:
websites/production/aries/ (props changed)
websites/production/aries/content/development/ReleaseProcessRequirements.html
Propchange: websites/production/aries/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- svn:mergeinfo (original)
+++ svn:mergeinfo Wed Feb 9 14:56:02 2011
@@ -1 +1 @@
-/websites/staging/aries/trunk:782169-785025
+/websites/staging/aries/trunk:782169-785077
Modified:
websites/production/aries/content/development/ReleaseProcessRequirements.html
==============================================================================
---
websites/production/aries/content/development/ReleaseProcessRequirements.html
(original)
+++
websites/production/aries/content/development/ReleaseProcessRequirements.html
Wed Feb 9 14:56:02 2011
@@ -235,18 +235,51 @@
<td height="100%" width="100%">
<!-- Content -->
<div class="wiki-content"><h1
id="release_process_requirements">Release process requirements</h1>
-<p>This is a page to help with the discussion of the requirements of a release
from Aries.</p>
+<p>Up to release 0.3 of Aries we released all of the modules at once, along
with a set of samples which demonstrated how the Aries components could be used
together.</p>
+<p>After release 0.3 we wanted to rexamine the release process, the primary
motivation for this was the observation that our
+current process did not use semantic versioning, and, as an OSGi project we
should be demonstrating best OSGi practice.</p>
+
+<p>We started with the following set of requirements for any Aries release:
</p>
+
<table class="confluenceTable">
<tr><th class="confluenceTh"> No. </th><th class="confluenceTh"> Description
</th><th class="confluenceTh"> Met currently </th></tr>
<tr><td class="confluenceTd"> 1 </td><td class="confluenceTd"> Follows OSGi
semantic versioning</td><td class="confluenceTd"> No </td></tr>
<tr><td class="confluenceTd"> 2 </td><td class="confluenceTd"> Must have a
buildable source distribution </td><td class="confluenceTd"> Yes </td></tr>
<tr><td class="confluenceTd"> 3 </td><td class="confluenceTd"> Must have
release notes</td><td class="confluenceTd"> Yes </td></tr>
-<tr><td class="confluenceTd"> 4 </td><td class="confluenceTd"> Must be
publicly announced </td><td class="confluenceTd"> </td></tr>
+<tr><td class="confluenceTd"> 4 </td><td class="confluenceTd"> Must be
publicly announced </td><td class="confluenceTd"> Yes </td></tr>
<tr><td class="confluenceTd"> 5 </td><td class="confluenceTd"> An easy way
for users to download the bundles for a given component</td><td
class="confluenceTd"> Yes </td></tr>
-<tr><td class="confluenceTd"> 6 </td><td class="confluenceTd"> Easy
tagging/branching mechanism</td><td class="confluenceTd"> ? </td></tr>
+<tr><td class="confluenceTd"> 6 </td><td class="confluenceTd"> Easy
tagging/branching mechanism</td><td class="confluenceTd"> Yes </td></tr>
<tr><td class="confluenceTd"> 7 </td><td class="confluenceTd"> A way to
provide bug fixes</td><td class="confluenceTd"> Yes </td></tr>
<tr><td class="confluenceTd"> 8 </td><td class="confluenceTd"> A way to
ensure that a given component doesn't have conflicting dependencies </td><td
class="confluenceTd"> ? </td></tr>
-</table></div>
+</table>
+
+<p>Our ideal for a release process would involve to release by module, one
might visualise the process like this: </p>
+
+<p><img alt="rel" src="release_by_module.png" /></p>
+<p>In this case, we have a module version (independent of the version of its
sub-modules) and a set of sub-modules which may each be indepndently versioned.
+
+## Advantages of release by module
+ 1. Releasing a coherent set of bundles that have been built and run together
+ 1. Releasing a buildable set of source for all constituent bundles in one zip
file
+ 1. A more consumable unit than a set of single bundles - easier for Aries
consumers. A smaller number of discrete downloads.
+
+## Disadvantages of the release by module process
+ 1. We would want to release a whole module at once, this would mean
re-releasing bundles at the same level
+ (and with the same content) as a previous release. This is not a major issue
+ 1. Developer would need to be careful to version submodules poms
independently from the parent/reactor pom. Again,
+ not a major issue but a change from the way we work at the moment.
+ 1. The Maven release plugin will not cope with having different levels of
snapshot in the same release.
+Therefore we would either require changes in the Maven release plugin or we
would have to stop using it
+and maintain our own alternative, to allow us to release by module.
+ 1. It's not all clear what the strategy for branching would be. For example,
consider the following scenario:
+
+<p>The bundles in trunk should be versioned differently from the versions in
branch. This really mandates a bump in the major version.
+<p>The consequence of not bumping the major version and using the versioning
tool to compare versions in trunk (for the next release from trunk)
+and using the versioning tool to create bug fix versions from the branch has
the potential to lead to the situation in which bundles with the
+same version number have different content.
+<p>For example, as time goes on another release (version 6) of the proxy
module is created, the version compare tool dictates that proxy-impl
+should be released at version 0.4.2. But now, someone who wants a fix to
proxy-impl in 0.4.1 (in proxy module version 5) which would be provided
+from the branch, would also get a proxy-impl bundle at version 0.4.2 with
different content. This is a situation which must be avoided.</div>
<!-- Content -->
</td>
</tr>
