Hi Prabath, On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Prabath Abeysekera <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Dinusha, > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Dinusha Senanayaka <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Prabath, we don't have any ball pass here. AppM next release is based on >> kernel-4.4.1 that's our road map decision and we don't see any reason to go >> with 4.4.0 while 4.4.1 available and I pointed set of issues/reasons in >> previous mail as well. >> > > Let me rephrase what I said earlier. MDM team doesn't have any objection > against "next AppManager version" being shipped on top of Carbon 4.4.1, > which is orthogonal to what was discussed. All we asked for previously is a > "app-mgt component" release, which is depending on Carbon 4.4.0, to be > shipped with EMM 2.0.0. > > Anyway, please consider that this is all sorted. Now that both parties > agree that we can go ahead with 4.4.1, let's please stick to that plan. Can > you guys also please give us an ETA as to when the next app-mgt component > release will be out? That'd be helpful to us in terms of planning AppM > integration bits well in advance. > We can do a component release within this week using the appm current master. But we have few concerns, please check whether it's OK to proceed with them. - We are working on some web app new features and those are available in the current master, but we haven't done proper QA for these yet. I think this should be OK with you guys since, you don't touch web-app functionality - We have added some new feature/improvements to mobile apps as well. But those are properly dev tested. - We don't have done full QA testing after 4.4.1 migration, only basic functional testing has done. You might have to test with MDM. Regards, Dinusha. > > Cheers, > Prabath > > >> >> Anyway, I thought problem is already sorted since you said, 4.4.1 upgrade >> didn't give you any issues and gonna proceed with it ? >> >> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Prabath Abeysekera <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Dinusha Senanayaka <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Prabath, >>>> >>>> Regarding the option 2 given and your feedback on it, >>>> >>>> IMO, the solution given by you doesn't fit us because of following >>>> reasons, >>>> - We got to know that there are lot of fixes included in kernel-4.4.1 >>>> over 4.4.0. Hazelcast upgrade, Registry life cycles are not working on >>>> mounted environment and the list of L1 fixes done [1] are the best >>>> examples. So knowingly kernel-4.4.0 is buggy with these issues and fixes >>>> are already available with kernel-4.4.1, we do not want to do AppM new >>>> release with kernel-4.4.0. >>>> >>> >>> AFAIK, quite a few teams have already started developing on top of >>> 4.4.0. The model put forward after discussing with all is that, you depend >>> on a specific kernel version and if there's going to be any issue, the >>> underlying kernel functionalities have to be patched. If we're not >>> following this practice, I don't really see why the aforementioned practice >>> was recommended, in the first place. Further, as I've already pointed out, >>> if we are forced to update the kernel version we're currently depending on >>> just because of some bug in a one component, that's pretty unfortunate and >>> has to be fixed in an appropriate manner. >>> >>> Not only that, if 4.4.0 is considered to be buggy, we would expect an >>> official notification from people who are maintaining the same to update >>> all on going developments with Carbon Kernel 4.4.1 related dependencies. >>> However, couldn't find anything of that sort, and also, didn't come across >>> any blocking issues so far upon any of the MDM related functionalities, so >>> why do you think we need to go out of the recommended practice? >>> >> I'm not sure whether issues given in here [1] should consider for MDM and >> whether patches are available for kernel-4.4.0. >> >> [1] https://wso2.org/jira/browse/CARBON-15146?filter=12323 >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> [1] https://wso2.org/jira/browse/CARBON-15146?filter=12323 >>>> >>>> - And we suggest to create a new branch and maintain by your team >>>> because AppM product doesn't have a requirement of releasing 4.4.0 based >>>> repo for AppM product release. MDM having the requirement. Several teams >>>> have done this as their requirements even though it's not the best option >>>> and cause trouble for product team (here AppM) in support etc. >>>> eg : 1. ES team had created separate branch for AppM 1.0.0 release and >>>> we send pull requests for ES team. >>>> https://github.com/wso2/product-es/tree/app-manager >>>> >>>> >>> No, we don't intend to maintain any source branch owned by the AppM >>> team, which doesn't scale as I'd pointed out already. >>> >>> >>>> 2. IS team had created a separate branch for APIM/ AppM releases based >>>> on kernel-4.2.0 since their release is based on kernel 4.4.x. >>>> https://github.com/wso2/carbon-identity/tree/release-4.2.5 >>>> >>>> 3. APIM team had created new synapse version for their release and took >>>> the responsibility of it. >>>> >>>> There should be many other scenarios like this as per the situation. >>>> >>> >>> What we expect is not to "ball-pass" but to get the appropriate >>> components released by the teams who are owning them. So, I'd be glad if we >>> could urgently have some help from your team to get this sorted out. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Prabath >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Anyway, I think the problem is sorted now, since kernel-4.4.1 upgrade >>>> works for you. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Dinusha. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Prabath Abeysekera <[email protected] >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Chanaka, >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, August 10, 2015, Chanaka Fernando <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Prabath, >>>>>> >>>>>> We have upgraded from kernel 4.4.0 to 4.4.1 with the ESB 4.9.0 Beta >>>>>> release. We were using 4.4.0 up until Alpha release and we have upgraded >>>>>> carbon-mediation, wso2-axis2-transports and product-esb to use kernel >>>>>> 4.4.1 >>>>>> with Beta release. We haven't encountered any issue after upgrading into >>>>>> 4.4.1. Your arguments might be correct. But I think you can give it a try >>>>>> to upgrade your components to kernel 4.4.1. I am suggesting this to you >>>>>> from the experience we gained from ESB beta release. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the feedback. Sure, let me give it a try and see. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Prabath >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Chanaka >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Prabath Abeysekera < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Dinusha, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for taking time to help us with this. Please find my comments >>>>>>> inline. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 11:38 PM, Dinusha Senanayaka < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi MDM Team, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Initial plan was to release AppM-1.1.0 release based on >>>>>>>> carbon-4.4.0. But due to some issues in the synapse version released >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> carbon-4.4.0, we need to move to Synapse 2.1.3.wso2v6 which will >>>>>>>> be released with ESB 4.9.0. For that the the >>>>>>>> carbon.meadiation.feature should be 4.4.3 which eventually depends on >>>>>>>> carbon 4.4.1. And there are some registry related issues that fixed in >>>>>>>> carbon-4.4.1. Because of these reasons we have to move AppM release to >>>>>>>> carbon-4.4.1. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Since you guys need AppM mobile features to be included into MDM, >>>>>>>> you have two options here, >>>>>>>> 1. Move MDM release also into carbon-4.4.1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The team can surely consider going for this option, but, only as the >>>>>>> last resort. We'd already released a number of milestones upon Carbon >>>>>>> 4.4.0, so if we're forced to upgrade everything to use Carbon 4.4.1 (In >>>>>>> other words, adapting a "new" kernel release) just to fix a bug in one >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> the dependent components, approaching EMM 2.0.0 Alpha in less than a >>>>>>> month, >>>>>>> then there's a problem in the system that needs to be fixed. I do >>>>>>> understand the fact that the release number (i.e. 4.4.1) suggests that >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> is a patch release, so, unlikely that there'd by any API changes, etc >>>>>>> around. Therefore, one might think it is a straight forward task to >>>>>>> upgrade >>>>>>> all "device-mgt" components to use the latest version of Carbon kernel. >>>>>>> However, unfortunately, it's not only about device-mgt related >>>>>>> components, >>>>>>> but quite a few other stuff as well. In other words, there should be >>>>>>> quite >>>>>>> a few other components that depend on 4.4.0, which would need to be >>>>>>> upgraded as well. I wouldn't take that risk to upgrade them all at this >>>>>>> stage of the release, just to get an issue fixed in one of the >>>>>>> components. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. Since MDM doesn't require AppM gateway features, we could create >>>>>>>> a separate branch for you only with store/publisher/mobile features >>>>>>>> based >>>>>>>> on carbon-4.4.0 and you have to maintain the branch. (AppM master is >>>>>>>> still >>>>>>>> based on carbon-4.4.0, we could create this branch before we upgrade >>>>>>>> it to >>>>>>>> carbon-4.4.1) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> AFAIK, the process demands us to release all components maintained >>>>>>> in a particular repository at once. So, I don't quite think releasing >>>>>>> individual components is possible. On the other hand, this just appears >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> be a "patch solution", which doesn't seem scale well going forward. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also, I'm a little concerned by the statement, "*based on >>>>>>> carbon-4.4.0 and you have to maintain the branch*". Why would some >>>>>>> other team "maintain" app-mgt source branches? If this is about fixing >>>>>>> bugs, etc that the EMM team comes across while adapting app-mgt related >>>>>>> components, we ourselves would anyway go for it as time permits. >>>>>>> However, >>>>>>> creating some branch and asking other teams to "maintain" the same is >>>>>>> against collaborate development, IMO. If you create a new version of the >>>>>>> components, that will at some point be used by the "whole platform". So, >>>>>>> asking some other team to "maintain" the components owned by your team, >>>>>>> as >>>>>>> you can obviously see, does not seem to scale. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With all the above considered, I'm suggesting the following, which I >>>>>>> think is the best option. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * Update "carbon.mediation.feature" to use "2.1.3.wso2v6" and make >>>>>>> its version something like "4.5.*" (ESB team can probably decide on a >>>>>>> proper version number if what's suggested doesn't appear to be good). >>>>>>> The >>>>>>> idea is, even though 4.4.1 appears to be a patch release of Carbon >>>>>>> 4.4.0, >>>>>>> it has to be a big deal for a component to adapt to a new kernel >>>>>>> version. >>>>>>> Also, IMO, each and every component should let us have enough room to >>>>>>> fix >>>>>>> bugs of an already released version that depends on the Kernel version >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> was originally released upon. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * Next, create a new version of "carbon.mediation.feature", which >>>>>>> depends on Carbon 4.4.0 and upgrade its synapse version to be " >>>>>>> 2.1.3.wso2v6". This is what needs to be used by the app-mgt >>>>>>> components. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * Get the app-mgt repo released so that the EMM can then adapt all >>>>>>> required components on top of Carbon Kernel 4.4.0. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please do let me know if you think it's going to be challenging to >>>>>>> get the above to work, or if you need further clarifications. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Prabath >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let us know the preferred option for MDM release. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Dinusha. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Dinusha Dilrukshi >>>>>>>> Associate Technical Lead >>>>>>>> WSO2 Inc.: http://wso2.com/ >>>>>>>> Mobile: +94725255071 >>>>>>>> Blog: http://dinushasblog.blogspot.com/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Prabath Abeysekara >>>>>>> Technical Lead >>>>>>> WSO2 Inc. >>>>>>> Email: [email protected] >>>>>>> Mobile: +94774171471 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Dev mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> http://wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Chanaka Fernando >>>>>> Senior Technical Lead >>>>>> WSO2, Inc.; http://wso2.com >>>>>> lean.enterprise.middleware >>>>>> >>>>>> mobile: +94 773337238 >>>>>> Blog : http://soatutorials.blogspot.com >>>>>> LinkedIn:http://www.linkedin.com/pub/chanaka-fernando/19/a20/5b0 >>>>>> Twitter:https://twitter.com/chanakaudaya >>>>>> Wordpress:http://chanakaudaya.wordpress.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dinusha Dilrukshi >>>> Associate Technical Lead >>>> WSO2 Inc.: http://wso2.com/ >>>> Mobile: +94725255071 >>>> Blog: http://dinushasblog.blogspot.com/ >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Prabath Abeysekara >>> Technical Lead >>> WSO2 Inc. >>> Email: [email protected] >>> Mobile: +94774171471 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dinusha Dilrukshi >> Associate Technical Lead >> WSO2 Inc.: http://wso2.com/ >> Mobile: +94725255071 >> Blog: http://dinushasblog.blogspot.com/ >> > > > > -- > Prabath Abeysekara > Technical Lead > WSO2 Inc. > Email: [email protected] > Mobile: +94774171471 > -- Dinusha Dilrukshi Associate Technical Lead WSO2 Inc.: http://wso2.com/ Mobile: +94725255071 Blog: http://dinushasblog.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] http://wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
