Next week, I'll start implementation of UI tests for all screens.
Emmanuel
Jason van Zyl a écrit :
>
> On 17 Oct 06, at 2:34 PM 17 Oct 06, Brett Porter wrote:
>
>> I agree with Emmanuel. IIRC, the profiles are already in the model,
>> and basic choice of which JDK and maven/ant installation to use should
>> be straightforward and extremely useful. I agree that making it more
>> pervasive and using the toolchain support would be even better, but I
>> don't believe it needs to wait for that.
>>
>
> I would be against any more radical changes until the testing setup is
> rock solid. We're slipping in this area. We don't really know what
> machines this stuff runs on and I don't think anything is automated
> anymore. We need to stop paying lip service to what we are preaching.
>
> Jason.
>
>> - Brett
>>
>> On 18/10/2006, at 12:54 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
>>
>>> The introduction of continuum profiles isn't impacted by the
>>> DefaultContinuum refactoring.
>>> If we don't provide a full continuum profiles implementation in 1.1,
>>> I think we can do a minimal one with only the possibility to choose
>>> the maven1/maven2/ant/java home directories and use them instead of
>>> using maven/ant/mvn/java from the PATH. This feature isn't big to do.
>>>
>>> In 1.1, I'd like to see the possibility to choose in build
>>> definitions if a project is built with an update (like it's done
>>> actually) or with a clean checkout.
>>>
>>> The last point, I'd like to see in 1.1 is the dependency/parent
>>> change build-trigger.
>>>
>>> All these features are awaited by users since a long time. I don't
>>> think the implementation will take lot of time, so they can be add in
>>> 1.1.
>>>
>>> Of course, we need a database migration tool for the release too.
>>>
>>> Emmanuel
>>>
>>> Jesse McConnell a écrit :
>>>> I was going to try and wrap my head about what needed to get wrapped
>>>> up for a 1.1 release of continuum this week when I got to talking to
>>>> emmanuel this morning.
>>>> I had been under the impression that we were getting near a point
that
>>>> we might want to polish things up and cut a 1.1 release but emm was
>>>> thinking that we ought to have another big push for new features
>>>> before we start polishing things up. So I told him I would mention
>>>> our talk and see what kinda interest we got from people on new
>>>> features and who might want to tackle what in the short term, or if
we
>>>> wanted to put some things out into the longer term bin.
>>>> One of the major things that I had been thinking we would push
off to
>>>> the 1.2 release was the profiles. Its a slightly overridden term as
>>>> it has little to do with maven profiles, but in my mind at least the
>>>> profiles were going to be 1/3 of a trinity by which builds could be
>>>> setup to run.
>>>> The trinity being: profile (maven instance, env vars, maven
profiles,
>>>> jdk instance, etc), temporal ( scheduled cron, when dependency
>>>> changes, scm activity, etc) and the project group (bundle of
>>>> projects). I was figuring that those three things taken together
>>>> ought meet the requirements for building what, where and when. It
>>>> would be a matter of setting up the permutations of those three
>>>> components, for example: 2 profiles, 1 schedule, 1 project group
would
>>>> make 2 instances of schedulable FOO.
>>>> Anyway, I digress...profiles would be one large feature that
would be
>>>> wonderful to have in continuum, sooner the better. But it would be
>>>> pretty massive effects on the codebase. So massive that I would
think
>>>> we ought to consider splitting up the DefaultContinuum object into
the
>>>> workflows that have been kicked around, making things like 'Add
>>>> Project To Project Group' extensible by users so they can trigger
any
>>>> other processes they might want running on those events. Trygve has
>>>> some definite ideas in this area, perhaps using the plexus-spe code.
>>>> The actions in continuum have been a first pass attempt at starting
to
>>>> break things out of the DC object which is pretty big atm.
>>>> If we were going to rip the top off of the DefaultContinuum object
and
>>>> add/modify in the profile concepts into the store then we really
ought
>>>> to clean up the whole store api which is more painful to work with
>>>> then it really should be. joakim and I had a lot of success with
>>>> structuring things nicely in the plexus-security jdo stores and we
>>>> could probably apply a ton of the concepts there in terms of api to
>>>> the continuum-store and make it scads easier to work with.
>>>> and on and on.
>>>> I agree with Emmanuel that since 1.1 as it currently stands is not
>>>> backwards compatible (I think) with the old database we ought to
just
>>>> add in what we need now...But doing this will definitely move out a
>>>> 1.1 release into the new year...and is that something we want to do?
>>>> I dunno really, personally I would be cool with adding in profiles
and
>>>> refactoring the core chunks of continuum up now and get it over
with,
>>>> but does anyone else have anything to say on the matter? I know we
>>>> have had a lot more interest recently by folks like rahul and
>>>> christian on participating, would you guys be interested in
taking on
>>>> some of these challenges with us? Theres nothing like ripping
through
>>>> the guts of code to really get involved :)
>>>> thoughts? should we open this out to the users list maybe?
>>>> jesse
>>
>
>
>
>
