On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:23 PM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:27 AM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> wrote: >> The feels like the sort of thing we need. A couple of points. >> >> - we need the project(s) you used to package the resources as we will >> have to republish the artifacts relatively regularly (maybe they >> should be in a more generally accessible area than your p.a.o site) > > So far I just do it manually, so zip up all the contributions created > in otests\sca-assembly, otests\sca-java-caa, otests\sca-java-ci, > otests\sca-policy, and the test runner jar is really just the jar > created in the Test_Client module of those projects. Those are pretty > stable now so don't often change and if they do it would be good if we > have to manually update to the newer release so we don't have breaks > like has just happened with the RuntimeBridge changes. I think the > p.a.o is ok for now but if anyone feels strongly could move it to the > svn repo, i didn't want to put it in our svn repo till its stable but > if we were to include this in a Tuscany released and OASIS weren't > publishing themselves I guess our svn repo is where it would have to > go. > >> - we should talk with the OASIS folks to see what they have in mind >> re. packaging. We can probably help them along the way and get them >> publishing these artifacts sooner rather than later > > Yes absolutely, we need to help and encourage them to publish proper > snapshot and released artifacts, and I'll be talking to Mike about > that.
Ok, I believe we're pushing on an open door. > >> >> Speed will be a problem with Assembly/CAA/CII/Policy hooked up. An >> extra 16 mins on the build. Then we'll have the otests starting to >> come in from the extensions. >> >> I think we need to get back to this idea about having profiles. I'e a >> core profile that does include these compliance tests. Never got round >> to doing anything about it as other improvements go my build down to >> the 15 minute mark. Creeping back up again now though even without the >> otests. >> > > I don't disagree with that and adding 16 minutes to the build may help > it happen. I don't think profiles are a pre-req to including these in > the trunk build though, we need to get these run in the full build > ASAP to stop the regressions that keep happening. We may be able to > remove some of the existing tests we have though that are duplicating > whats in the compliance tests and that may reduce the time a bit so at > some point we could look at doing that, eg when theres JMS binding > conformance test probably most of the existing JMS itests could go. +1 Simon -- Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
