- Creating staging repo is same as a normal hosted repo. So repo admin will do.
- Ability to merge a repo to another repo. Again repo admin will do - Finally, ability to clear out the entire repo should be repo admin as well. However this feature is dangerous since user can shoot their own foot -Dan On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Deng Ching <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with Dan. I think it should be kept as simple as possible.. :) > > In addition to what Dan listed below, I think the following should be > addressed in the design: > - creation of the staging repository (should it be distinguished and how > will it be distinguished it from a regular repository?) > - merging of the staged artifacts to the final repository > - deletion of the staging repository (should Archiva do this after the > merging? or should the user manually delete it?) > - security (who will be able to promote artifacts? will the granting of > access to the staging repo be just the same as what is currently > implemented? or will batch assignment of permissions to a group/set of users > be supported?) > > Thanks, > Deng > > On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 5:25 AM, Dan Tran <[email protected]> wrote: > >> From a build admin perspective, this what I would like to have: >> >> >> 1. Create a permanent staging repository on archiva where I can >> release/deploy all my projects one at the time. >> >> I can have multiple staging repos so that I can release multiple >> project at the same time >> >> 2. Once the artifacts at a staging repos, I'd like it to merge the >> staging repo into the official release repo. Finally wipe out the >> staging repo's content >> >> I think Archiva should keep the requiment as simple as these. >> >> Thanks >> >> -Dan >> >> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Wendy Smoak <[email protected]> wrote: >> > (I changed the subject line so it doesn't get lost in the generic >> discussion) >> > >> > On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 4:15 PM, eshan sudharaka <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> >> * Assign a Temporory reposotory for a group.(eg : com.MyTempRep.example) >> > >> > How do you think this should happen? Currently an admin has to create >> > a repo and assign permissions before it can be used. >> > >> >> * Only they are allowed to publish artifacts and the tempo rory repo is >> only >> >> open to them untill deploye the all artifacts to be tested.(not >> visible to >> >> the common repo with have tesed modules) >> > >> > How would you determine that all the artifacts have been deployed? >> > >> >> * once the temporory reposotory is closed it should me prevented from >> the >> >> developers being updating and it should be opened to QA people to >> >> testing(Same temporory repo will be used.only acces grants should be >> chaged >> >> and assing the acces for the QA group) >> > >> > Archiva doesn't currently know anything about 'developers' vs. 'QA'. >> > It just has users with roles like repository manager or observer. >> > >> > Is this something you want to introduce? >> > >> >> * once testing is done > if it success then merge the temp repo to the >> >> common repo(where the tested modules are located) >> >> if it fails then manually removed from the repo. >> > >> > IMO, this is the most important part (the promotion/merge step) and it >> > could be addressed separately from the roles/repo access part. >> > >> > In fact I'd like to be able to merge any two repositories, separately >> > from any staging/promotion workflow. See >> > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MRM-980 >> > >> >> I dont understand how the audit log is linking with this project >> idea.could >> >> u please explain it? >> > >> > The audit log needs to record all changes to the repositories. >> > who/what/where, etc. That would apply to these staging repos as well. >> > >> > Unless it's already been changed, I remember the audit logging being a >> > rather complex event driven thing. Don't get too bogged down in it if >> > it looks scary, it probably needs to be reworked as a separate >> > project. >> > >> >> and also are we need to wary about the changes that are done in the >> >> artifacts in temporary repo (by developers).I mean whether we should >> provide >> >> a facility like svn diff ? >> > >> > Once an artifact is deployed, it should not change. (I believe >> > Archiva already prevents re-deploying a released [non-SNAPSHOT] >> > artifact.) So no, I don't think a diff utility is needed. >> > >> > -- >> > Wendy >> > >> >
