On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Wendy Smoak <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Deng Ching <[email protected]> wrote: >> Sorry, I didn't notice this one. I'll review the branch this weekend >> and will send a separate thread for merging it to trunk :) Once it's >> been merged, I propose that we kick-off a milestone release. > > Should we do a release before the merge? I think trunk already has > some significant changes, but I'm also not sure how big this change > (staging) is. >
I'm fine if we do milestone releases of trunk before and after the merge :) > I built the MRM-980 branch and tried it out. My first impression is > that it wandered well away from the feature described in the issue. > All I wanted was to be able to merge two existing repositories! I > think that's in there somewhere though. :) Still, the JIRA issue > should be edited to describe what got implemented so the release notes > are clear. > > I tried a couple of simple merges and it works fine, including warning > about conflicts (duplicates.) > > A few things I jotted down: > > I couldn't find a link to the docs on the staging feature, though a > text search did turn up adminguide/staging-repositories.html . There should be a link in the left navigation: Runtime Configuration >> Staging Repositories > > I tried adding a staging repository to the default "internal" > repository, and it did not work. Editing "internal" again shows the > box is checked, but it will not display the location of the repo or > show the 'Merge' button after saving. However, I noticed that > internal-stage was in the list when I went to upload an artifact. The > docs say, "The snapshots and internal repositories configured in > Archiva by default, are not configured with attached staging > repositories." which I take to mean the staging repo is not there by > default but it _should_ be possible to add one. This looks like a bug.. > > Logging during the merge only shows the artifact filename. (Needs to > include the groupId to uniquely identify the artifact.) > > Overall I think the underlying merge feature is solid, (thanks Eshan!) > but the UI feels a bit rough. For example, un-checking a box to > delete the staging repo is not intuitive, nor does it give you a > chance to confirm this destructive action. And the warning about not > merging snapshots should probably only be displayed if there *are* > snapshots in the staging repo that won't be merged, otherwise it just > scares people unnecessarily. > +1 > I'm going to update the docs on the branch based on my user > experience. I'll ping the list for a review so someone can flag > differences between what I say it does and what was intended. :) Thanks Wendy! -Deng
