Hi Charlie, for one, we already have those for snapshots :)
But, for a release Process this wouldn't work due to 2 major "blockers". 1) The artifacts are required to be signed. And signing only works for Humans afaik (but I might be wrong on that ;) ) 2) Every artifact / release needs to be voted on and therefore you'd need to wait 72h for a vote to close, with at least 3 binding votes. Now that is the biggest blocker as far as I'm concerned. Therefore even though the idea is tempting and interesting it won't work for us. One might argue to do this with unsigned unreleased but tagged snapshot versions ... regards, Achim 2014-10-08 11:33 GMT+02:00 Charlie Mordant <[email protected]>: > Hi, > +1 for a short lifecycle. > > I'm not totally for what I'll ask but it's an alternative solution: > What about continuous deployement? > A Jenkins build pipeline that will trigger Jira ticket resolution then > releasing Karaf if all tests pass? > I really don't know if it's a viable solution, but it would make the thing > :). > > Best regards, > > 2014-10-08 10:46 GMT+02:00 Jamie G. <[email protected]>: > > +1 >> >> There will always be another upstream fix to wait for, a short Karaf >> update cycle seems to be the best approach to avoiding extended >> delays. >> >> --J >> >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Achim Nierbeck <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > I'm in big favor of having a hard release cycle on 6 weeks (minimum I'd >> > actually prefer 4 ;) ) >> > Regarding the thoughts about 3party dependencies, actually it's the >> reason >> > we don't get our own bugfixes out fast right now. >> > Actually I'd say screw it. No more waiting for 3rd party dependencies >> ... >> > get the stuff out fast cause 4-6 weeks later you have the next >> > release picking up the issue. >> > >> > regards, Achim >> > >> > >> > 2014-10-08 8:18 GMT+02:00 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]>: >> >> >> >> That's why we have an extend of 2 weeks to deal with other projects. >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> JB >> >> >> >> On 10/08/2014 08:16 AM, Christian Schneider wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Generally I agree that we should aim for such a cycle. >> >>> I only hope it is possible as we depend a lot on other projects that >> we >> >>> bundle. So a lot of the time a release waits on fixes or releases in >> >>> upstream projects. >> >>> >> >>> Christian >> >>> >> >>> Am 08.10.2014 07:52, schrieb Jean-Baptiste Onofré: >> >>>> >> >>>> Hi all, >> >>>> >> >>>> Users complained about the variable and long delays between Karaf >> >>>> releases. It's a fair comment and it's something that we have to >> >>>> improve. >> >>>> >> >>>> I propose the following new policy about the releases cycle: >> >>>> - for "active" branches (3.0.x and 2.4.x), I propose a release every >> 6 >> >>>> weeks, with maximum extend to 8 weeks. >> >>>> - for "eol" and "maintenance" branches (2.2.x and 2.3.x), it's "on >> >>>> demand", no strong cycle there. >> >>>> >> >>>> WDYT ? >> >>>> >> >>>> If everybody agrees, I will update the releases schedule page on the >> >>>> website. >> >>>> >> >>>> Regards >> >>>> JB >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> >> [email protected] >> >> http://blog.nanthrax.net >> >> Talend - http://www.talend.com >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > Apache Member >> > Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC >> > OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> >> Committer & >> > Project Lead >> > blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/> >> > >> > Software Architect / Project Manager / Scrum Master >> > >> > > > > -- > Charlie Mordant > > Full OSGI/EE stack made with Karaf: > https://github.com/OsgiliathEnterprise/net.osgiliath.parent > -- Apache Member Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer & Project Lead blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/> Software Architect / Project Manager / Scrum Master
