Guillaume what you say sounds like ""3.x is dead on arrival, and Red Hat will support only 2.x development".
can you please make some kind of "official" statement? I do not care either way, just want to know where to focus efforts. Andrei -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: release by subsystem From: Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> To: Andrei Pozolotin <[email protected]> Cc: "Jamie G." <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: Tue 12 Mar 2013 08:43:12 PM CDT > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Andrei Pozolotin > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Guillaume: > > no, snapshots are no good. > > explanation: > > we were trying to run in semi-production mode on karaf > 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT for last 6 month or so. > > problematic patterns: > > 1) some snapshots are good, some are really bad - karaf not even start > 2) daily snapshot pull is too much toll on developers - waste of time > 3) there is no easy way to go back to find out what/where was good > / revert to last known good. > > > That's the problem with automated builds. Having automated monthly > RCs would not help in any way. > What you're looking for is stability, not automated builds. > > > > issue at hand: > > this used to work some 3 months back, but broken now: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KARAF-2180 > > now you will cut RC1, with this bug baked in, > and then I have to wait for next 2 years to get RC2 :-) > I do not mind the bug, I mind 2 year wait / lack of periodic RC > freeze. > > example from another project: > netty is not afraid to release 8 alphas and 2 betas in 6 month > http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cga%7C1%7Cnetty > > I am not asking you to be an Oracle and release java every day, > but can you please be Google with their monthly chrome releases? :-) > > > The real problem with 3.x is lack of focus from the community, nothing > else. It's not a technical problem: trying to do more releases won't > help, as the problem is really to focus on those releases. > And again, this stability / release problem is not really present on > 2.x branches. > Btw, what features in 3.x were important to you so that you choose to > use this version instead of 2.x ? One possibility may be to backport > those to 2.4.x branch ... > > > > cheers, > > Andrei. > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: release by subsystem > From: Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> > To: Jamie G. <[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: Andrei Pozolotin <[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]> > Date: Tue 12 Mar 2013 07:33:49 PM CDT >> I actually fail to see what you're looking for Andrei. We have >> nightly builds already. Aren't those sufficient ? >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Jamie G. >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> RC's are a tagged and signed entity that are released from >> Apache - >> that requires a vote. The nightly snapshot builds are >> available for >> integration purposes in the mean time. >> >> Cheers, >> Jamie >> >> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Andrei Pozolotin >> <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > Jamie: >> > >> > cant you make a case that RC is not really a release? >> > >> > Andrei >> > >> > -------- Original Message -------- >> > Subject: Re: release by subsystem >> > From: Jamie G. <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> > Cc: Guillaume Nodet <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> > Date: Tue 12 Mar 2013 07:24:53 PM CDT >> > >> > Sorry for jumping in here, >> > >> > Apache builds require approval before release: >> > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release >> > >> > As to release schedule, that's purely at the discretion of the >> > community to my best understanding. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Jamie >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Andrei Pozolotin >> > <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > >> > Guillaume: >> > >> > how about automatic, once a month, karaf RC-XXX release, >> w/o vote? >> > >> > Andrei. >> > >> > -------- Original Message -------- >> > Subject: Re: release by subsystem >> > From: Guillaume Nodet <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> > Date: Tue 12 Mar 2013 06:24:24 PM CDT >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Andrei Pozolotin < >> > [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > >> > *Jean-Baptiste, Łukasz** >> > * >> > FYI: >> > >> > 1) I released a jenkins plugin which allows incremental >> cascaded >> > releases from any level of dependency tree: >> > >> > >> >> https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Maven+Cascade+Release+Plugin >> > >> > Thx for the heads up. >> > >> > >> > 2) I hope you can switch away from monolithic releases >> and release >> > karaf modules/subsystems on demand and often. >> > >> > Releasing karaf is fairly easy, and we rarely are waiting >> for third party >> > dependencies. >> > When that happens, it's mostly because we have bugs waiting >> to be fixed. >> > >> > >> > 3) IIRC, the first time "3.0.0.RC1 will come out in 2 >> weeks" was >> > promised on this mailing list about 2 years back :-) >> > >> > And this has nothing to do with the release process. >> Technically speaking, >> > trunk or branches are mostly always in a releasable state. >> > >> > >> > Thank you, >> > >> > Andrei >> > >> > -------- Original Message -------- >> > Subject: Re: release by subsystem >> > From: Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> > Date: Thu 07 Feb 2013 02:26:10 PM CST >> > >> > Hi Andrei, >> > >> > I understand your point. >> > >> > Some parts are really tight together. However, that's the >> purpose of >> > the minimal distribution and framework: >> > >> > - framework should provide the most minimal Karaf container >> (however, >> > it embeds Aries Blueprint for instance, as Karaf bundles >> use it) >> > - minimal is a very lightweight Karaf container, the >> purpose is to let >> > the user create a custom distribution on top of that. >> > >> > I'm listening all proposals to improve these distributions ! >> > >> > Regards >> > JB >> > >> > On 02/07/2013 05:30 PM, Andrei Pozolotin wrote: >> > >> > *Jean-Baptiste* >> > >> > I am curious if you envision to change karaf layout so >> release by >> > subsystem is possible. >> > >> > For example, if I use minimal sub set of karaf, which >> does not need >> > Aries, why should I wait for it? >> > >> > this is similar to how ops4j was partitioned way back, >> so there are >> > no monolithic Godzilla releases any more. >> > >> > Thank you, >> > >> > Andrei >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------ >> Guillaume Nodet >> ------------------------ >> Red Hat, Open Source Integration >> >> Email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> Web: http://fusesource.com <http://fusesource.com/> >> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ >> > > > > > -- > ------------------------ > Guillaume Nodet > ------------------------ > Red Hat, Open Source Integration > > Email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Web: http://fusesource.com <http://fusesource.com/> > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ >
