Hello Marshall, I can do it tomorrow so if you have any chance to do it before then I'd be very happy if you take care of that. Thanks, Tommaso
2011/6/8 Marshall Schor <[email protected]> > ok, I think we should go ahead and set up this new folder in svn. Do you > want > to do it, or would you like me to do it? > > -Marshall > > On 6/8/2011 6:25 AM, Tommaso Teofili wrote: > > 2011/6/7 Marshall Schor <[email protected]> > > > >> Re: the assembly - > >> > >> The Apache default assembly (see > >> > >> > http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/apache/resources/apache-source-release-assembly-descriptor/1.0.3/ > >> ) they don't use <moduleSets> - they just use one file set and zip up > >> whatever > >> is exported from SVN. > >> > >> I think this would make sense for us, and solve this "flattening" issue > >> that > >> happens when using moduleSets. > >> > >> But it has one issue: it packages up everything in the svn export. So > >> this > >> would include those things we're not releasing. > >> > >> Two ways to fix this: > >> > >> 1) do that little bit of SVN reorg - create another "top level" SVN > point > >> for > >> the addons, and move just those projects we're releasing from sandbox, > to > >> that. > >> > >> 2) Use the ability of the assembly descriptor configuration to have > >> includes/excludes, and use those to subset the export to just what we > need. > >> I > >> think this is more error-prone, though, and involves doing a special > step > >> when > >> release "tags" the project - you have to go into the tag and delete the > >> things > >> not being released. > >> > >> So I think approach 1) is better. > >> > > +1 I think this is the way to go also to avoid confusion between what is > an > > established addon and what is under development in the sandbox. > > Tommaso > > > > > >> -Marshall > >> > >> On 6/6/2011 5:09 PM, Marshall Schor wrote: > >>> On 6/6/2011 12:21 PM, Tommaso Teofili wrote: > >>>> Hello Marshall, > >>>> > >>>> 2011/6/6 Marshall Schor <[email protected]> > >>>> > >>>>> I svn "exported" the tag, and diff'ed it to the source-release. > >>>>> > >>>>> There are a few differences; although they are not required to be the > >> same, > >>>>> it's > >>>>> simpler if they are (mostly). This is because otherwise we have to > >>>>> carefully > >>>>> check and confirm that each thing which isn't the same, is OK. > Here's > >> a > >>>>> list of > >>>>> the differences I found. > >>>>> > >>>>> 1) The SVN is organized differently for the osgi components - they > are > >>>>> subdirectories in the addons-osgi-runtime folder, but in the source > >>>>> release, > >>>>> they appear at the top level. Does the default behavior of the > >>>>> source-assembly > >>>>> change this nesting to a "flat" structure, or are we overriding the > >> default > >>>>> somehow? > >>>>> > >>>> I didn't make any special configuration to do that so I assume it to > be > >> the > >>>> default behavior. > >>> I took a quick look - the default assembly for source-release is using > >> the > >>> <moduleSet> technique to include all the sources. There is one > >> <moduleSet> - > >>> and this would lose any hierarchy that may be present in how the files > >> are > >>> stored in SVN. > >>> > >>> Since the layout is different, the build-from-sources (using the > >> source-release) > >>> will fail I think. (It already fails, but this is due to the > >>> AlchemyApiAnnotator not being found (due to renaming). > >>> > >>> I think this might be fixable by overriding - to have two <moduleSets> > - > >> one for > >>> everything that's going under addons-osgi-runtime folder, and another > one > >> for > >>> all the rest. Each would have its own <outputDirectory> to direct the > >> files to > >>> the right spot. You can see the default descriptor being used that you > >> would > >>> need to override, in > >>> > >> > build/uima-build-resources/src/main/resources/assemblies/multimodule-source-release.xml. > >>> > >>>>> 2) The alchemy-annotator is named two different ways: in the > >>>>> source-release it > >>>>> is called "alchemy-annotator", but in the SVN export it is called > >>>>> "AlchemyAPIAnnotator" > >>>>> > >>>> I think this depends on the artifactId which is "alchemy-annotator" > but > >> the > >>>> directory is called AlchemyAPIAnnotator, I wasn't sure about how to > >> handle > >>>> it as the "alchemy-annotator" artifactId came from the previous > donated > >>>> project; however I think it'd be good to change it to > >> AlchemyAPIAnnotator. > >>> +1, because it has to match for the build-from sources to work, I > think. > >>> > >>> -Marshall > >>> >
