hi Dan, this is the proposal which i submitted to the gsoc 2010 site.I think you may have acces to the proposal as deng and brett.
Title: Add support for temporary repositories used for staging for Archiva Student: Eshan Sudharaka Abstract: Creating a repository where the users can deploy their artifacts and once the testing tasks are completed user can deploy the artifact to the common place where the we can use those artifacts as dependencies in pom files or remove the artifact from the temporary repository if it fails during the testing phase. Proposal Title:Student Name:Student E-mail: Proposal Title : Add support for temporary repositories used for staging for Archiva Student name : Patti Archchige Eshan Sudharaka E-mail : [email protected] IRC : irc://irc.codehaus.org/archiva Organization/Project:Assigned Mentor: Organization Name : Apache Software Foundation Project : Apache Archiva Assigned Mentor : Maria Odea Ching Proposal Abstract: Apache archiva is a repository management system where we can deploy our artifacts to a common location and later on we can make use those artifacts (jar files) in our projects by adding the artifacts as dependencies in the POM file.But here there is no any separate place to deploy the artifacts which are not tested yet and also the artifacts of an ongoing project(modules).So we need to deploy them in to the common location where the official artifacts are deployed.So there can be some issues due to use of those artifacts as dependencies in our projects since they are not properly tested. So here my idea is to create a separate place (repositories) where the registered user can deploy the staging artifacts.Those artifacts are not visible to common users.Once the testing task is completed(ready for the public deployment) we can either merge in to the common place where others can make use of those artifacts or remove from the staging artifact(if it fails). Detailed Description*:* First i would like to give a brief introduction about my approach to adding the staging reposotory feature. * *Adding a Staging Repository * currenlty archiva comes with two default permanent repositories.Those are internal repository and the snapshots repository.My idea is to add another default repository called staging repository where the developpers can deploy their ongoing(which have not being tested yet) .It is the admins task to grant acces to the repository to users.Also no one(archiva artifacts users) is allowed to use this repository as in the pom files as mensioned in folllowing. <pluginRepository> <id>internal</id> <url>http://192.168.0.7:8080/archiva/repository/staging<//url> </pluginRepository> So the visibility of the repository should be only with in the archiva registererd users. * *Creating Roles for this staging repository* 1) Read and Write acces to the repository Here registered users can read and write articacts to the repositaory. Here registered users mean develpers and thr QA people.Developers have both read and write access where the QA people have only the read access. 2) Promotion the Artifacts(merging to the common place) This is the most important part in this project.Once the testing tasks are done this role is responsible for merge artifacts from staging repository to the internal repository or the snapshot repository.It depends on the artifact(snapshot or a version).Here i am going to consider following things regarding the merging the artifacts * If the artifacts that are going to deploy is not an existing one(new one) just deploy it with creating new meta data file. * If the artifact is a new version of an existing artifact in the internal repository and then deploy the artifact and also update the meta data file.(exsisting one) eg : lets say version 1.0 is available in internal repo and i need to deploy version 1.1 to the internal repository form the staging repository. * There is another possibility in merging an artifact.Lets say in internal repository we have version 1.1.x and we need to merge version 1.1.y(new one) to the internal repository from the staging repository.Here i propose to have following functions. 1). Remove older one and deploye the latest version.(with updating meta data files) 2). Deploy the latest version while keeping the older version.(with updating the meta data files) Here i am going to use archiva audit logs to determine what is the suitable option to follw and provide above functionalies to the user.Also aditional logs should be implemented for the staging reposotary. *Time Line :* May 24- June 6 : adding a default staging repository and assign the all permissoin configurstions of that repository to the admin user June 7 - June 12 : restricted this staging reposotory from being using as a plugging repository from out user as mentioned in above in thire pom.xml files June 13 - June 28 : implementing the read action and the write actions and assign them to the developer(role)and the QA person(role) as mentioned in above. June 29 -Jul 1 : Testing the roles(developer) with the staging repository. July 2 - July 10 : implementing the promotion role.(only the merging based on the assumption that new artifact is beign deployed.Not a update version) July 11 - July 20 : implement the logs and make use them for the searching algorithm to check the older versions of the artifacts which have already deplyed. July 12-Submit midterm evaluation July 21- July 30 : add searching feature(action) to the promotion role and do the merging part by providing the options regarding the versioning as mensioned above. July 31 - Auguest 5 : implementing logs for staging repository Auguest 6 - Auguest 10 : testing phase August 10-August 16 : Publish results and conclusion. *About me : * I am Eshan Sudharaka.(Patti Arachchige Eshan Sudharaka) and currently a thrid year undergraduate of department of computer science and engineering at university of moratuwa.Now i am under my intern period at hsenid mobile solutions pvt.There we use archiva as internal repository and also we are using lot of apache product such as maven , ant.It is a plesure to join with the open source community and wish to have a long jorney. On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Dan Tran <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Eshan , > > what is the link to that site? > > Thanks > > -Dan > > On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Eshan Sudharaka <[email protected]> > wrote: > > hi Brett, > > i have already posted my proposal to the gsoc site.Could you please check > it > > and if there are any unclear parts or conflicts things please let me > > inform.I saw deng has already put comment on it. > > > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Brett Porter <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Any further thoughts on this? Eshan, could you perhaps summarise your > >> proposal so far with the comments incorporated? Unfortunately, our wiki > is > >> still down which is the normal place to document the current state > between > >> discussions, but we can continue using the mailing list in the mean > time. > >> > >> On 06/04/2010, at 1:36 PM, Brett Porter wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > On 03/04/2010, at 8:25 AM, Dan Tran 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 > >> > > >> > I agree to them being permanent - I'd prefer to be pointing Maven at > >> deploying to a staging repository, rather an automatically creating a > >> temporary one, and the staging repository should be available to Maven > users > >> without having to change it all the time. I think they must be attached > to a > >> particular managed repository, though, and this needs to be easy to do - > I > >> wouldn't want a lot of manual work each time and I definitely wouldn't > want > >> to be reconfiguring Maven for different deployments. > >> > > >> > This makes some sense for us since the permissions are currently > aligned > >> to the repositories, so we can grant a merging permission. > >> > > >> > The tools here should be reusable for similar use cases - for example > if > >> a proxy connector had a staging repository, we would be able to have an > >> approval process for third party artifacts that are requested. > >> > > >> >> > >> >> 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 > >> > > >> > It might be worth having the option of selecting which artifacts to > merge > >> (with default being all), then deleting those artifacts from the staging > >> repository. > >> > > >> > In the future, this could be made more intelligent by grouping > artifacts > >> automatically for merging (by using the modules, parents and > dependencies > >> elements to detect related artifacts that need to be moved together). > >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> > Brett > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Brett Porter > >> > [email protected] > >> > http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> -- > >> Brett Porter > >> [email protected] > >> http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > P.A.Eshan Sudharaka > > Dept of Computer Science and Engineering > > University of Moratuwa > > Sri Lanka > > > -- P.A.Eshan Sudharaka Dept of Computer Science and Engineering University of Moratuwa Sri Lanka
