Quality can be improved by adding more integration tests. Its done by deploying war to a tomcat server. I understand the concern but according to me its difficult to verify all the release packages during release verification process. I am fine to have only WAR distribution with the steps to deploy and update properties. Adding shared libraries in war distribution may not solve our problem as user may want to deploy airavata server and registry on different tomcat server or different machines.
Thanks Raminder On Sep 30, 2013, at 10:40 AM, Marlon Pierce <[email protected]> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I'd be concerned about the quality of production testing for releasese > if we just include an embedded server. I think Rave hit this > problem--everyone tested the simplified version packaged for the > release, but there were a lot bugs and other problems that appeared when > trying to use it in a more realistic deployment. > > I think it is better to come up with a packaging strategy that is simple > enough for testing but also reasonably realistic. > > > Marlon > > On 9/30/13 10:30 AM, Raminder Singh wrote: >> Problem is not releasing both tar and zip. Problem is size of the war >> distribution file which contain > 2 war files (airavata-server.war and airavata-registry.war). Both the > war files have lib jars and increase its size more than 100MB. Apache > limit of 100MB is per file. I think we should only release tar and zip > with embedded server to get started. Creating and deploying of WARs can > be documented for production users. WDYT? >> >> Thanks >> Raminder >> >> On Sep 30, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Supun Kamburugamuva <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >>> I've noticed you are releasing both a tar and a zip for all the > distribution artifacts. I've seen lot of people only releasing a zip or > a tar and not both. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Supun.. >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Saminda Wijeratne > <[email protected]> wrote: >>> reducing the release footprint should also be a priority IMO. >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Raminder Singh <[email protected]> > wrote: >>> Airavata 0.9 is released now and Marlon mentioned a timeline for 1.0 > is Mid Nov. How do we want to handle next release? >>> >>> Some of the features required for the projects i work with are: >>> >>> GSISSH Provider >>> Async execution of Applications and implement your own monitor. >>> >>> Lets discuss a timeline and plan for next release and as well as for 1.0. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Raminder >>> >>> On Sep 13, 2013, at 3:06 PM, Marlon Pierce <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all-- >>>> >>>> Airavata 0.9 is pending, we also would like to have 1.0 in time for >>>> Supercomputing 2013 (November 15th), and we have been trying to get down >>>> to ~6 week releases. We have 9 weeks until SC13. >>>> >>>> I suggest we do the following: >>>> >>>> * Get 0.9 out over the next couple of days. There are no blocking > issues. >>>> >>>> * Define 0.91 or 0.10 release next week and target completion in 4 for >>>> ~October 11th. >>>> >>>> * Define and complete 1.0 release for November 15th. The primary goal >>>> for 1.0 is to have the API stable. >>>> >>>> >>>> Marlon >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Supun Kamburugamuva >>> Member, Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org >>> E-mail: [email protected]; Mobile: +1 812 369 6762 >>> Blog: http://supunk.blogspot.com >>> >> >> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) > Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSSY1gAAoJEOEgD2XReDo5wboH/0/TtjqS8zbZVqFsraT8wKqF > EwZijWZjH2zf9skl04V1muQb0SnQ4/XqgWRcHLKmy3Q6gbSKQbCQVcgc5SAJ9KC6 > TaF/+oNUqc2rNIicnwnHBlPw3J0a0VhH3S2CI1d8/EpkMmsM4qstN0UN2EWb7Lr+ > bT5Ye2BZVPNRW3BD+DTcEMH/74NbJ5Z8sKG9wlfWwbLIyD5JyFuzUEjGjVmpVbDA > fGGYTmNB/TJBA3sWG/xsF/wJoAvN07BMQOxQ87r1KDhNRmxwA68hKTO97WwB+iW/ > DSwFzEj1lQb3B0DBk5tilz/aXXGcCUMUybawQlsBVQW9AnDl+ANuPu1FXjyw0eM= > =iVNg > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >
