The main PR has been merged into the `main` branch. I personally think this is a great example of collaboration to follow. Thank you Fabrizio for leading the coordination here, Kumar for doing the bulk of the work, Kennedy for assisting with updating the tests, Thiago and Luiz for testing it out, and everyone else for the patience while waiting for this to land. Awesome!
On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 7:13 PM Thiago Lugli <thiago...@apache.org> wrote: > > First of all, thank you, everyone, for the massive effort in this upgrade! > > I'm currently testing some packages and found some issues with event > handlers (probably related to the change in the order of the > arguments). I'll open a new PR to fix them. > I'll try to test more packages tomorrow, but I can always open new PRs > targeting the main branch if I find any issues after the upgrade PR is > merged. > > Em ter., 29 de abr. de 2025 às 19:04, Tiago Bento > <tiagobe...@apache.org> escreveu: > > > > PR checks are green on the main PR! I guess we just need a quick round > > of reviews and we'll be good to go. If we detect problems we can > > always send followup PRs. Thanks all! > > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 4:16 PM Fabrizio Antonangeli > > <fantonang...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > Thank you Tiago. > > > The new branch is: > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-tools/tree/patternfly-v5-upgrade > > > > > > Regards, > > > Fabrizio > > > > > > On Mon, 2025-04-28 at 12:20 -0400, Tiago Bento wrote: > > > > Fabrizio, > > > > > > > > Agree, good strategy. Thanks for the heads up! > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Tiago Bento > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 8:18 AM Fabrizio Antonangeli > > > > <fantonang...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tiago, as we are Aditya, Kennedy and me working on the same > > > > > branch > > > > > through PRs on Aditya's fork, I would propose to move our branch > > > > > [1] to > > > > > kie-tools with a new name (patternfly-v5-upgrade). The PROS of > > > > > moving > > > > > the branch to kie-tools repo are: * we don't consume Aditya's GH > > > > > profile > > > > > * faster CI run: when we create a PR against `patternfly-v5- > > > > > upgrade` > > > > > branch, the CI will test only the packages which has been modified > > > > > and it's dependencies. > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know what you think. Regards, Fabrizio 1. > > > > > https://github.com/kumaradityaraj/kie-tools/tree/allpackagesp4top5On > > > > > Fri, 2025-04-18 at 17:21 +0200, Fabrizio Antonangeli wrote: > > > > > > Status update: Thanks also to Kennedy's effort, we fixed dmn- > > > > > > editor, > > > > > > dmn-editor-standalone, scesim-editor and online-editor is WIP. > > > > > > We have 17 e2e errors on the online-editor to fix but it seems is > > > > > > the > > > > > > last package to be fixed. > > > > > > SonataFlow/SWF side is also already fixed. > > > > > > Next week I will be on PTO but there will be Aditya and Kennedy > > > > > > working > > > > > > on this. > > > > > > Have a good weekend! > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2025-04-04 at 12:35 -0400, Tiago Bento wrote: > > > > > > > Great suggestion Jan! Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > FYI I added some labels to PRs today. Most notably I marked the > > > > > > > `react-router` upgrade as order:2 > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-tools/pull/3042, and > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > PatternFly 5 upgrade as order:1. Meaning the PatternFly 5 > > > > > > > upgrade > > > > > > > should be merged before the `react-router` upgrade. I hope that > > > > > > > eases > > > > > > > things on your end Fabrizio. Since I'm working closely with > > > > > > > Luiz on > > > > > > > the `react-router` PR, we can revisit it and fix any conflicts > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > may occur after the PatternFly 5 PR is merged. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tiago Bento > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 8:08 AM Fabrizio Antonangeli > > > > > > > <fantonang...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's true, this is also something we can try and it's also > > > > > > > > easier. :- > > > > > > > > ) > > > > > > > > Even creating a separate kie-tools PR, so we don't leave > > > > > > > > temporary > > > > > > > > code > > > > > > > > in the real PR. > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot, Jan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2025-04-04 at 13:12 +0200, Jan Šťastný wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > Regarding the PR check workflow - you could as part of your > > > > > > > > > PR > > > > > > > > > temporarily > > > > > > > > > change/override the respective values and they should take > > > > > > > > > effect > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > particular PR only, shouldn't they? > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dne pá 4. 4. 2025 11:15 uživatel Fabrizio Antonangeli < > > > > > > > > > fantonang...@apache.org> napsal: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Tiago for you suggestions and the env vars. > > > > > > > > > > Yesterday, I created the CI on a personal fork: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/fantonangeli/kie-tools-fantonangeli-ghas/actions/runs/14247565814 > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately I had to stop the running when GH emailed > > > > > > > > > > me > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > consumed 100% of my personal Actions usage for the > > > > > > > > > > current > > > > > > > > > > month, > > > > > > > > > > so I > > > > > > > > > > don't have a result to show ATM. > > > > > > > > > > I will check if I can run this in a different account. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2025-04-03 at 09:20 -0400, Tiago Bento wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > No need to worry about freezing the `main` branch > > > > > > > > > > > because > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > release process, as releases are done from a "minor > > > > > > > > > > > stream" > > > > > > > > > > > branch, > > > > > > > > > > > like `10.0.x`, or `10.1.x`. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To not stop the build/test process when a test breaks, > > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > > these env vars: > > > > > > > > > > > - KIE_TOOLS_BUILD__ignoreTestFailures="true" > > > > > > > > > > > - KIE_TOOLS_BUILD__ignoreEndToEndTestFailures="true" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These env vars are already configured like this for > > > > > > > > > > > checking > > > > > > > > > > > commits > > > > > > > > > > > on `main`, but on PRs we left it configured as `false` > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > fail > > > > > > > > > > > faster. > > > > > > > > > > > I agree, however, that for an effort like this it would > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > interesting > > > > > > > > > > > to have the PR checks behave in the same way as well. > > > > > > > > > > > Doing > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > your personal fork is a great idea, though. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As for your suggestions, unfortunately I think having > > > > > > > > > > > everyone > > > > > > > > > > > open > > > > > > > > > > > "cherry-picks" to the PF5 upgrade branch would result > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > even > > > > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > > chaos, since conflicts only happen after a PR is merged > > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > `main`, > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > it wouldn't be clear who would be solving conflicts > > > > > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > > > multiple > > > > > > > > > > > PRs > > > > > > > > > > > were merged together. Splitting the work between > > > > > > > > > > > "partitions" > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > bad idea, we just need to find an easy way to split the > > > > > > > > > > > repository > > > > > > > > > > > into disjoint sets so that we can move the upgrade > > > > > > > > > > > independently > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > each one of them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From my experience, the most efficient way is to have > > > > > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > > > > person > > > > > > > > > > > driving the upgrade effort with regular broadcast > > > > > > > > > > > updates > > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > completion state, combined with requesting authors of > > > > > > > > > > > big > > > > > > > > > > > PRs > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > hold > > > > > > > > > > > merging them until the upgrade is done, if possible, > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > frequent > > > > > > > > > > > merges of course. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tiago Bento > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 5:24 PM Fabrizio Antonangeli > > > > > > > > > > > <fantonang...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tiago, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your advice! We've been continuously > > > > > > > > > > > > merging > > > > > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > main > > > > > > > > > > > > branch to keep the "delta" as small as possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please see my answers below. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2025-04-02 at 13:51 -0400, Tiago Bento wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Fabrizio, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for raising awareness of the issue! This > > > > > > > > > > > > > upgrade > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > indeed > > > > > > > > > > > > > very > > > > > > > > > > > > > important since PatternFly is already on version 6! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Having done some complicated upgrades myself in the > > > > > > > > > > > > > past, > > > > > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > > > know > > > > > > > > > > > > > how > > > > > > > > > > > > > frustrating it can be to keep the upgrade branch > > > > > > > > > > > > > up-to- > > > > > > > > > > > > > date > > > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > > > > > > > things being developed simultaneously. If it helps, > > > > > > > > > > > > > my > > > > > > > > > > > > > strategy > > > > > > > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing frequent merges to not let work accumulate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's > > > > > > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > > less > > > > > > > > > > > > > fighting the clock, as the more time you take to > > > > > > > > > > > > > make > > > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > stable, > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > less stable it gets due to other changes being > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged > > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > `main` > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch. You'll know if you're winning the race if > > > > > > > > > > > > > you're > > > > > > > > > > > > > ever > > > > > > > > > > > > > able to > > > > > > > > > > > > > get a green build, even if for a couple of hours > > > > > > > > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > > > > > > getting > > > > > > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > > > > conflicting code merged on `main`. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My suggestion for you is to do frequent merges and > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep > > > > > > > > > > > > > regularly > > > > > > > > > > > > > updating everyone else to know where you're being > > > > > > > > > > > > > most > > > > > > > > > > > > > impacted > > > > > > > > > > > > > (package names, for example), so that people > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributing > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > package are aware that they can end up making this > > > > > > > > > > > > > migration > > > > > > > > > > > > > take > > > > > > > > > > > > > longer, and if they can hold their PRs a little > > > > > > > > > > > > > longer, > > > > > > > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > > > help > > > > > > > > > > > > > you indirectly. At the same, it helps everyone else > > > > > > > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > > > > > you're > > > > > > > > > > > > > able to > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell how close to completeness the PR is, so we can > > > > > > > > > > > > > eventually do > > > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1-week stabilization period, for example, without > > > > > > > > > > > > > merging > > > > > > > > > > > > > anything > > > > > > > > > > > > > else on `main` to make sure this upgrade is finally > > > > > > > > > > > > > finished. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aditya has already upgraded all components using PF4. > > > > > > > > > > > > At > > > > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > > stage, we > > > > > > > > > > > > are focused on syncing and fixing issues. > > > > > > > > > > > > Many packages have already passed the tests, while > > > > > > > > > > > > others > > > > > > > > > > > > were > > > > > > > > > > > > successfully tested in an earlier stage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For future upgrades like this, I believe it would be > > > > > > > > > > > > useful > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > Build CI that can be triggered only manually on a > > > > > > > > > > > > specific > > > > > > > > > > > > branch > > > > > > > > > > > > without stopping execution if a package fails. This > > > > > > > > > > > > way, > > > > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > > get > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > test results for all packages. > > > > > > > > > > > > As an alternative, I can also set up a CI job in a > > > > > > > > > > > > personal > > > > > > > > > > > > repository > > > > > > > > > > > > to gather the test results and share them with you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right now, if you're confident that the PR is very > > > > > > > > > > > > > close > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > > > > > > ready and you were already able to get a green > > > > > > > > > > > > > build > > > > > > > > > > > > > (meaning > > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > a short period of time you had "everything > > > > > > > > > > > > > working"), > > > > > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue a > > > > > > > > > > > > > freeze proposal here in the mailing list and have > > > > > > > > > > > > > everyone > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributing to `kie-tools` to hold their PRs until > > > > > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > > > upgrade > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > reviewed and merged. WDYT? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would avoid to freeze `main` branch (and maybe > > > > > > > > > > > > impact a > > > > > > > > > > > > release > > > > > > > > > > > > process) and then have a blocker like for the > > > > > > > > > > > > Serverless > > > > > > > > > > > > Workflow > > > > > > > > > > > > Chrome Extension, which is something that can happens > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > > > > activities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would prefer to avoid freezing the `main` branch > > > > > > > > > > > > (which > > > > > > > > > > > > might > > > > > > > > > > > > impact > > > > > > > > > > > > the release process) and then potentially > > > > > > > > > > > > encountering > > > > > > > > > > > > blockers, > > > > > > > > > > > > such > > > > > > > > > > > > as the issue with the Serverless Workflow Chrome > > > > > > > > > > > > Extension, > > > > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > > happens in these types of upgrades. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, let me know what you think! > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tiago Bento > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 12:03 PM Fabrizio > > > > > > > > > > > > > Antonangeli > > > > > > > > > > > > > <fantonang...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally agree freezing PF4 work is not really > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > option. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But it also quite difficult to forecast the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > closing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PR as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > many "variables" are involved and there can be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > blockers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > related > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > our changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For instance the ubuntu-1 GHA is currently > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GH > > > > > > > > > > > > > > web > > > > > > > > > > > > > > UI > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changed something and the Serverless Workflow > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chrome > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Extension > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > passing the tests in this PR but also in this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > related > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to our work: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-tools/pull/3041 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm working on this fix. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In addition to this, I think establishing a good > > > > > > > > > > > > > > way > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > core activities will help us on the next ones as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > still > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > update React, Patternfly v6. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2025-04-02 at 13:42 +0000, Jozef Marko > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Fabrizio, as this is very crucial PR, I can > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > imagine > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'block' PRs that contain patternfly changes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > until > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > big > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PF4 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PF5 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PR is merged. I can imagine this only if we are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confident > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > enough > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PF4 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -> PF5 PR will be merged in a week? or two > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > weeks? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be such 'blocking window' size. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I can not imagine we do similar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'blocking > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > window' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > longer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than two weeks. Ideal 'blocking window' size > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exist > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We would probably agree - the shorter the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jozef Marko > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Software Developer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jozef.ma...@ibm.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Fabrizio Antonangeli > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <fantonang...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 4:00 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: dev@kie.apache.org <dev@kie.apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PROPOSAL] Coordinating > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PatternFly 5 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Upgrade > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Effort > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aditya and I are very close to finishing a PR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updating > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PatternFly > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to v5 [1]. The main problem we have is that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > while > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > update, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issues, and run the CI, the work on the main > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > using > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PF4 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > continues. This means we have to continuously > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sync > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PR, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > update > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new code to PF5, re-test, and check the CI. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The CI also takes time to run, as all frontend > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > packages > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PatternFly, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the CI tests all of them. Once everything > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > green, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reviewers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > also need time to go through the PR (which > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > includes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 530 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > files), > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > while > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the meantime, PF4 development on `main` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > continues. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since I don't think we can freeze PF4 work > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > until > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PF5 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > update > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > completed, my suggestion is to establish a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > temporary > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "rule": > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone developing PF4 code on main should > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > open a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aditya's `allpackagesp4top5` branch with the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > corresponding > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PF5 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > update. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This would be required only until the PR is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reviewed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alternatively, can we "split" our work into > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SWF- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > related > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Online Editor-related work? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As always, I'm open to other ideas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-tools/pull/2853 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > > > > > > > > > > > > dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > > > > > > > > > > > > dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > > > > > > > > > > > dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > > > > > > > > > > > dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > > > > > > > > > > dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > -- > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org
