Btw, just a heads up.. the last day for student's coding is Aug 16, so we have 12 days to go to wrap up the branch :)
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Deng Ching <[email protected]> wrote: > For MRM-980 branch, the merging and resolving of conflicting versions are > already working. The artifacts merged are also being logged in the audit > logs now. > > Aside from the bugs that need to be fixed (see linked issues in MRM-980 > jira), what's left to be done are the webapp tests and the documentation. > I think the webapp-tests might be broken on the branch as the layout and > data displayed in the repositories page were broken (MRM-1398). Once these > are fixed and the webapp tests and docs are written, we can already merge > the branch to trunk. > > As for a milestone release, I suggest we do one after the merge.. > > Thanks, > Deng > > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Brett Porter <[email protected]> wrote: > >> What's the latest on this? I've had trouble following all the issues, but >> it'd be good to have a summary of where it's at. >> >> Any plans to merge to trunk, release a milestone, etc. in the near future? >> >> - Brett >> >> On 09/07/2010, at 11:14 AM, Eshan Sudharaka wrote: >> >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> > From: Brett Porter <[email protected]> >> > Date: Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 1:38 PM >> > Subject: reviewing the staging branch >> > To: [email protected] >> > >> > >> > Hi Eshan, >> > >> > I've just had a quick review of the staging branch. It looks close to >> > working for the file merge. It would be good to move forward soon >> because >> > there's many other things to do! :) >> > >> > We've been going around a few alternatives for the API, and I think it >> would >> > be good to clean it up and finalise it. >> > >> > These are the current issues in the code I think need cleaning up: >> > - there's a lot of use of fields - but the classes are only instantiated >> > once by Spring. This means they aren't thread-safe, and overly >> complicated >> > to work with (for example, the setters calling other setters). The >> > operations don't need any state since they are meant to be done in one >> go, >> > so the data can be passed to the merge() method >> > - the test code is running inside src/ instead of target/ - this means >> the >> > source code gets changed (and these changes appear in patches...). Also, >> the >> > test artifacts added to the test repository are a bit confusing - since >> > o.a.archiva:archiva is a POM, there shouldn't be JARs. I suggest >> creating >> > new artifacts for merging tests and not modifying the existing >> > maven2-repository test. >> > - the SourceArtifacts class is now redundant (calling >> > metadataRepository.getArtifacts(repo) can be used instead) >> > - the old archiva-repository-layer API should not be used (except for >> the >> > RepositoryMetadataMerge class). Use the methods from maven2-repository >> and >> > metadata-model instead. Never use ArchivaArtifact! :) There's a lot of >> > manually constructing Maven information, even though the APIs are >> available >> > already - eg RepositoryPathTranslator. >> > >> > Here is what I think needs to be done to get the merging API complete >> based >> > on the previous thread: >> > >> > First, create an org.apache.archiva.repository.staging.RepositoryMerger >> > interface, which is the external interface for those wishing to merge >> > repositories (in our case, used from the web application). Probably it >> has >> > these methods: >> > >> > void merge( String sourceRepoId, String targetRepoId ); >> > void merge( String sourceRepoId, String targetRepoId, >> > Filter<ArtifactMetadata> filter ); >> > >> > The filter could be called with "new IncludesFilter( listOfArtifacts )" >> to >> > merge a given list of artifacts, similar to the current lists passed >> into >> > the ArtifactsMerger. >> > >> > Second, change ArtifactsMerger to >> > org.apache.archiva.repository.staging.Maven2RepositoryMerger and >> implement >> > the RepositoryMerger interface. Move the code from doMerge into here. >> > >> > Finally, clean up the code following the comments above. >> > >> > After this is done, I think the implementation on the wiki should be >> made >> > more detailed, breaking it down to the tasks remaining, in order, with >> each >> > able to be completed in roughly a week. >> > >> > Does that sound like a good plan? >> > >> > yes.Thanks. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Brett >> > >> > -- >> > Brett Porter >> > [email protected] >> > http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > P.A.Eshan Sudharaka >> > Dept of Computer Science and Engineering >> > University of Moratuwa >> > Sri Lanka >> >> -- >> Brett Porter >> [email protected] >> http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ >> >> >> >> >> >
