Hey everyone,
There were some questions today in the channel about outstanding
issues for the Infusion Builder and where they fit into the bug
parade. After catching up on the channel logs, here are my thoughts:
First, there was the question of whether the Builder needs to be
subject to all the same bug parade/release rules as the rest of
Infusion, since since it doesn't actually ship inside Infusion. While
it currently lives in our incubator SVN space, it will get promoted to
a fully supported product for the Infusion 1.1.2. Given how important
it is to Infusion, it should continue to be subject to all the usual
bug parade and QA procedures.
http://issues.fluidproject.org/browse/FLUID-3213
The issue of error handling logic within the Builder's server-side PHP
code. Jacob's code review rightly points out that we're making some
assumptions with regular expressions used to find properties within
the Ant build script's build.properties file. These absolutely should
be fixed, but I think we can get away with leaving it off bug parade
for Infusion 1.1.2. Indeed, after this release we may want to visit
our strategy for reading build.properties and perhaps parse it instead
of running potentially fragile regexps on the file's raw contents.
http://issues.fluidproject.org/browse/FLUID-3191
So FLUID-3191 is just the addition of some extra comments? As I
understand it, this code is hard-baked to a particular Infusion
version number. I'm assuming that this is temporary, and that
eventually we'll pull the version number out of the build script's
build.properties file? Is there a JIRA for this issue?
I'm assuming we'll have some documentation about anything that is
required to do for the builder when upgrading it or to a new version
of Infusion.
To summarize:
1. Infusion Builder will remain synced to the release cycle of
Infusion, and will undergo bug parade, code freeze, and QA alongside
Infusion.
2. Let's not include FLUID-3213 for the Infusion 1.1.2 bug parade.
It's a major issue that we can fix after this release is out the door.
3. FLUID-3191 seems strange to me.
4. I agree with Jacob's code review assessment for FLUID-3149, 3190,
3191, 3199, and 3200. We're cool here, and these can get checked off
the "Needs Review" list of the bug parade.
I hope this helps,
Colin
---
Colin Clark
Technical Lead, Fluid Project
http://fluidproject.org
_______________________________________________________
fluid-work mailing list - [email protected]
To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
