On Apr 12, 2012, at 5:39 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: > First of all I believe that (packaged) releases are intended for > non-developers (end users) and not for developers. That in mind, releases > should have everything that is needed to run generic production systems. > And nothing more, not test code, not demo data.
Pierre, I could agree with you in general but please consider that OFBiz is a small community and no one is really investing a lot of effort and helping much in release management (apart from backporting issues); in the history of OFBiz the community has been mostly focused on new development on trunk and I don't see a reason now for changing this: we should minimize the time required to manage releases and the current layout, where we have *one* project layout that is rather good for both development and packaging releases, helps in achieving this. > > When developers want to look at what is underneath for testing and/or > modification they can use svn to have access to everything they might need. > > As is per ASF policy. > > We do however facilitate the end user with additional code that helps them > to run OFBiz against other underlying Db's and systems (amongst other > reasons, due to licence-issues) , e.g. the ant targets to download drivers > for PostgreSQL and mySQL. I also believe that having source code in place, > that downloads every external jar required to run OFBiz as it should, > adheres to ASF policies. If the jars are ASF compliant and not required to run the system. > > I also believe that tooling can help building the releases (no matter what > must go in there) as per requirements of the ASF. This would lessen the > burden on committers. Instead of removing old versions of external jars and > uploading new ones manually, doing configuration management (as IVY- and > Maven-integration deliver) will ensure that the right (external) > components/jars are incorporated. Can we step back a little and focus on my original questions? Instead of selecting the tool (ivy) and then trying to solve the problem with it rather than manually please focus on the problem first, then we will select the right tool if we don't want to manually maintain the jars. So the main points are: * we have jars in OFBiz (some of them very old) with no release number in their file name: we have to research and find the release number and then document it (manually renaming the file OR editing a tool config file like Ivy... I don't care at the moment) * we have jar files that we don't know if they are used or not: we have to figure out and then remove them (manually removing the file OR removing the line from the tool config file like Ivy... I don't care at the moment) or document their purpose * we have jar files that are snaphots: can we upgrade them to a stable release or not? (manually or with a tool I don't care at the moment) * we have jar files that are rather old versions: can/should we update them or the new versions are backward compatible? and if they are, do we want to update our code to use the latest versions? When we will take a decision/solution for each of the above questions then we will be ready to evaluate a tool to implement them. Jacopo > > Maybe we should setup discussions with Xavier > Hanin<https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=xavier> > from > the IVY project to explain a bit more what it can do for OFBiz, before we > jump to conclusions or start heading in wrong directions. > > I also believe that when applied correct (build, dependency management and > CI) tooling will help us in evaluate external jars better to include in > releases or not, and let us focus on what is more important. > > If we decide that the approach is sound, then we should set up a different > branch to explore possibilities and not merge back into trunk unless all > issues are addressed. > > Regards, > > Pierre > > > > > > Op 12 april 2012 17:02 schreef Jacopo Cappellato < > [email protected]> het volgende: > >> >> On Apr 12, 2012, at 4:37 PM, Erwan de FERRIERES wrote: >> >>> ivy would rename the jars the way we want (eg package-version.jar), >>> and using ivy, we would then reduce the LICENSE file, as less jars >>> would be released with OFBiz. From an extremist POV, we could only >>> whip ant + ivy, and one of the first task would be to download >>> everything. >> >> No no, this is not possible: please ready my previous message carefully; >> the release package will have to contain required jars (while the svn may >> not) and most of all the LICENSE file must contain all jars that are >> required to run/test/use the software. >> >> Jacopo
