You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@bloodhound.apache.org by Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com> on 2013/04/16 02:54:13 UTC
ETA for bringing contrib folder back to trunk
Hi !
During the week end I created at Bibucket a fork of Trac XmlRpcPlugin
to add in there compatibility for Bloodhound . We need that to
integrate some desktop applications with issue tracker , but there are
other applications even for our own use .
After reviewing the state of xmlrpcplugin trunk , now I tried to run
its test suite . This is what I got
{{{
#!sh
$ /srv/venv/python/trac/0.13/bin/python setup.py test -m tracrpc.tests
running test
running egg_info
writing TracXMLRPC.egg-info/PKG-INFO
writing top-level names to TracXMLRPC.egg-info/top_level.txt
writing dependency_links to TracXMLRPC.egg-info/dependency_links.txt
writing entry points to TracXMLRPC.egg-info/entry_points.txt
writing TracXMLRPC.egg-info/PKG-INFO
writing top-level names to TracXMLRPC.egg-info/top_level.txt
writing dependency_links to TracXMLRPC.egg-info/dependency_links.txt
writing entry points to TracXMLRPC.egg-info/entry_points.txt
reading manifest file 'TracXMLRPC.egg-info/SOURCES.txt'
reading manifest template 'MANIFEST.in'
writing manifest file 'TracXMLRPC.egg-info/SOURCES.txt'
running build_ext
Found Trac source: /path/to/bloodhound/trac
/srv/venv/python/trac/0.13/bin/python: can't open file
'/path/to/bloodhound/trac/contrib/htpasswd.py': [Errno 2] No such file
or directory
Unable to setup admin password
Trac test infrastructure not available.
Install Trac as 'python setup.py develop' (run Trac from source).
Stopping web server...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ran 0 tests in 0.000s
OK
}}}
So I'm curious : what's the estimated time to bring contrib folder
back into BH trunk ? <= if such estimation is possible of course .
--
Regards,
Olemis.
Re: ETA for bringing contrib folder back to trunk
Posted by Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>.
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 5:38 AM, Gary Martin <ga...@wandisco.com>wrote:
> On 18/04/13 13:23, Ryan Ollos wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 4/15/13, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi !
>>>>>
>>>>> During the week end I created at Bibucket a fork of Trac XmlRpcPlugin
>>>>> to add in there compatibility for Bloodhound . We need that to
>>>>> integrate some desktop applications with issue tracker , but there are
>>>>> other applications even for our own use .
>>>>>
>>>>> Great! I think it has enough value that I'd like to see XmlRpcPlugin
>>>> eventually become a component of the Bloodhound distribution.
>>>>
>>>> AFAICR trac-dev was also considering merging that plugin into Trac
>>> core once upon a time .
>>>
>>> Considering some plans and schedule for proposals (i.e. BEPs) this
>>> seems to be imminent . Of course , they'd have to be fleshed out and
>>> accepted first . Still in the fridge though .
>>>
>>> After reviewing the state of xmlrpcplugin trunk , now I tried to run
>>>>> its test suite . This is what I got
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> So I'm curious : what's the estimated time to bring contrib folder
>>>>> back into BH trunk ? <= if such estimation is possible of course .
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is a ticket (1) for adding license headers to the files in
>>>>
>>> 'contrib'
>>>
>>>> and some other directories, and I felt that I took ticket as far as I
>>>>
>>> could
>>>
>>>> without additional input from a Trac developer. Most everything looked
>>>>
>>> fine
>>>
>>>> in terms of being able to put a BSD 3-Clause license on all, or nearly
>>>>
>>> all,
>>>
>>>> of the files in 'contrib', but I'm not optimistic that there will be any
>>>> status changes of the ticket for a while.
>>>>
>>>> ... a law of Trac inertia ... they have other important things to do
>>> too . For our own sake let's keep them focused on releasing high
>>> quality code ;)
>>>
>>> So if everyone agrees that we have a good case for adding back
>>>>
>>> 'contrib', I
>>>
>>>> favor doing that and just removing it from the release tarball,
>>>>
>>> considering
>>>
>>>> Brane said this would work okay.
>>>>
>>>> if this triggers a vote , fwiw +1
>>>
>>
>> Since there were no further comments to those by Olemis and Brane, I went
>> ahead and restored `contrib` in r1469291.
>>
>>
> I should clearly have said something earlier :)
>
> I think we are fine for the moment with this but if we once again need to
> remove this at release time, even if only in the release artefacts, we have
> only solved the problem for ourselves. If the ETA for restoring contrib
> properly is far away, we might want to find another solution to this so
> that users can also run the tests.
>
I'll try bumping the ticket in Trac by asking if there is anything else I
can do to move it along.
Re: ETA for bringing contrib folder back to trunk
Posted by Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com>.
On 4/19/13, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 19.04.2013 16:38, Olemis Lang wrote:
>> On 4/19/13, Gary Martin <ga...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I wonder if it would be wrong to ask for the XmlRpcPlugin maintainers to
>>> resolve the issue by making sure that any required contrib files are
>>> available. Another alternative would be to vendor branch the plugin
>>> specifically to fix that.
>> JFTR , the situation is not limited to XmlRpcPlugin . Indeed it reuses
>> the fixture setup for functional tests implemented in core and adds
>> nothing else. It is not possible to run Trac's functional tests either
>
> If Trac's test suite depends on scripts in contrib, all I can say is
> that's clearly wrong-headed.
>
I see it like if it was a testing dependency (e.g. test_requires)
resolved inside the very same repository file hierarchy . Notice that
these are functional tests , not unit tests . FWIW Trac core does not
rely upon htpasswd.py at all . That's the responsibility of admins .
However in order to run functional test suites and setting up the
fixture the goal is to interact with the system just like users do ,
in a real working environment . Permission checks in that context will
require real users with real passwords (not mocks et al.) , hence the
need for the script in /contrib .
--
Regards,
Olemis.
Apache™ Bloodhound contributor
http://issues.apache.org/bloodhound
Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/
Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/
Featured article:
Re: ETA for bringing contrib folder back to trunk
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>.
On 19.04.2013 16:38, Olemis Lang wrote:
> On 4/19/13, Gary Martin <ga...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> I wonder if it would be wrong to ask for the XmlRpcPlugin maintainers to
>> resolve the issue by making sure that any required contrib files are
>> available. Another alternative would be to vendor branch the plugin
>> specifically to fix that.
> JFTR , the situation is not limited to XmlRpcPlugin . Indeed it reuses
> the fixture setup for functional tests implemented in core and adds
> nothing else. It is not possible to run Trac's functional tests either
If Trac's test suite depends on scripts in contrib, all I can say is
that's clearly wrong-headed.
-- Brane
--
Branko Čibej
Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com
Re: ETA for bringing contrib folder back to trunk
Posted by Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com>.
On 4/19/13, Gary Martin <ga...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>
[...]
>
> I wonder if it would be wrong to ask for the XmlRpcPlugin maintainers to
> resolve the issue by making sure that any required contrib files are
> available. Another alternative would be to vendor branch the plugin
> specifically to fix that.
JFTR , the situation is not limited to XmlRpcPlugin . Indeed it reuses
the fixture setup for functional tests implemented in core and adds
nothing else. It is not possible to run Trac's functional tests either
{{{
#!sh
$ make functional-test
It looks like you don't have a Makefile.cfg file yet.
You can get started by doing `cp Makefile.cfg.sample Makefile.cfg'
and then adapt it to your environment.
Python version: Python 2.6.5
figleaf:
coverage:
PYTHONPATH=.:
TRAC_TEST_DB_URI=
server-options= -p 8000 -r -e
python setup.py egg_info
running egg_info
writing requirements to Trac.egg-info/requires.txt
writing Trac.egg-info/PKG-INFO
writing top-level names to Trac.egg-info/top_level.txt
writing dependency_links to Trac.egg-info/dependency_links.txt
writing entry points to Trac.egg-info/entry_points.txt
reading manifest file 'Trac.egg-info/SOURCES.txt'
writing manifest file 'Trac.egg-info/SOURCES.txt'
python trac/tests/functional/__init__.py -v
/usr/bin/python: can't open file './contrib/htpasswd.py': [Errno 2] No
such file or directory
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "trac/tests/functional/__init__.py", line 167, in <module>
unittest.main(defaultTest='suite')
File "/usr/lib/python2.6/unittest.py", line 817, in __init__
self.runTests()
File "/usr/lib/python2.6/unittest.py", line 864, in runTests
result = testRunner.run(self.test)
File "/usr/lib/python2.6/unittest.py", line 753, in run
test(result)
File "/usr/lib/python2.6/unittest.py", line 464, in __call__
return self.run(*args, **kwds)
File "/usr/lib/python2.6/unittest.py", line 460, in run
test(result)
File "/usr/lib/python2.6/unittest.py", line 464, in __call__
return self.run(*args, **kwds)
File "/path/to/bloodhound/trac/trac/test.py", line 137, in run
self.setUp()
File "/path/to/bloodhound/trac/trac/tests/functional/__init__.py",
line 120, in setUp
self._testenv = self.env_class(dirname, port, baseurl)
File "/path/to/bloodhound/trac/trac/tests/functional/testenv.py",
line 60, in __init__
self.create()
File "/path/to/bloodhound/trac/trac/tests/functional/testenv.py",
line 129, in create
raise Exception('Unable to setup admin password')
Exception: Unable to setup admin password
make: *** [functional-test] Error 1
}}}
so this is still needed to work towards #387 .
> I am assuming that the XmlRpcPlugin is
> something we will want to include at some point.
>
I'm working towards a solution for this particular purpose since that
will be needed to make forthcoming proposals work .
--
Regards,
Olemis.
Re: ETA for bringing contrib folder back to trunk
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>.
On 19.04.2013 12:25, Gary Martin wrote:
> On 18/04/13 13:58, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 18.04.2013 14:38, Gary Martin wrote:
>>> On 18/04/13 13:23, Ryan Ollos wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/15/13, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi !
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> During the week end I created at Bibucket a fork of Trac
>>>>>>> XmlRpcPlugin
>>>>>>> to add in there compatibility for Bloodhound . We need that to
>>>>>>> integrate some desktop applications with issue tracker , but there
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> other applications even for our own use .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Great! I think it has enough value that I'd like to see XmlRpcPlugin
>>>>>> eventually become a component of the Bloodhound distribution.
>>>>>>
>>>>> AFAICR trac-dev was also considering merging that plugin into Trac
>>>>> core once upon a time .
>>>>>
>>>>> Considering some plans and schedule for proposals (i.e. BEPs) this
>>>>> seems to be imminent . Of course , they'd have to be fleshed out and
>>>>> accepted first . Still in the fridge though .
>>>>>
>>>>>>> After reviewing the state of xmlrpcplugin trunk , now I tried to
>>>>>>> run
>>>>>>> its test suite . This is what I got
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I'm curious : what's the estimated time to bring contrib folder
>>>>>>> back into BH trunk ? <= if such estimation is possible of course .
>>>>>> There is a ticket (1) for adding license headers to the files in
>>>>> 'contrib'
>>>>>> and some other directories, and I felt that I took ticket as far
>>>>>> as I
>>>>> could
>>>>>> without additional input from a Trac developer. Most everything
>>>>>> looked
>>>>> fine
>>>>>> in terms of being able to put a BSD 3-Clause license on all, or
>>>>>> nearly
>>>>> all,
>>>>>> of the files in 'contrib', but I'm not optimistic that there will
>>>>>> be any
>>>>>> status changes of the ticket for a while.
>>>>>>
>>>>> ... a law of Trac inertia ... they have other important things to do
>>>>> too . For our own sake let's keep them focused on releasing high
>>>>> quality code ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>> So if everyone agrees that we have a good case for adding back
>>>>> 'contrib', I
>>>>>> favor doing that and just removing it from the release tarball,
>>>>> considering
>>>>>> Brane said this would work okay.
>>>>>>
>>>>> if this triggers a vote , fwiw +1
>>>> Since there were no further comments to those by Olemis and Brane, I
>>>> went
>>>> ahead and restored `contrib` in r1469291.
>>>>
>>> I should clearly have said something earlier :)
>>>
>>> I think we are fine for the moment with this but if we once again need
>>> to remove this at release time, even if only in the release artefacts,
>>> we have only solved the problem for ourselves. If the ETA for
>>> restoring contrib properly is far away, we might want to find another
>>> solution to this so that users can also run the tests.
>> The solution is, for example:
>>
>> svn export
>> http://subversion.apache.org/repos/asf/bloodhound/tags/x.y.z/trac/contrib
>>
>> called optionally from the bloodhound installer script.
>>
>> Or even export directly from the core trac repository at a particular
>> version.
>>
>> -- Brane
>>
>
> Not a bad idea.. I would probably still go with dropping contrib from
> trunk again for the next release if Trac do not solve the issue for
> us, but we could do the optional export from
> http://subversion.apache.org/repos/asf/bloodhound/vendor/trac/x.y.z/contrib
I'll say again: there's no need to drop contrib either from trunk or
from the release branch. We can delete it from the tag as part of the
release process.
Yes, that means we modify tags. Subversion has been doing that for
releases since ages ago, and no-one has complained we don't have an
audit trail. :)
> For this to work, it seems to rely on the assumption that the user has
> subversion installed and that the user will know to run the installer
> in a certain way to allow the tests to run. That we are probably
> considering helping out a fairly small audience who would run the
> tests here might make this kind of approach ok as long as they can
> find the required information.
I bet the number of users who want to run tests from a release tarball
is smaller than the number of users with Subversion installed.
-- Brane
--
Branko Čibej
Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com
Re: ETA for bringing contrib folder back to trunk
Posted by Gary Martin <ga...@wandisco.com>.
On 18/04/13 13:58, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 18.04.2013 14:38, Gary Martin wrote:
>> On 18/04/13 13:23, Ryan Ollos wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/15/13, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi !
>>>>>>
>>>>>> During the week end I created at Bibucket a fork of Trac XmlRpcPlugin
>>>>>> to add in there compatibility for Bloodhound . We need that to
>>>>>> integrate some desktop applications with issue tracker , but there
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> other applications even for our own use .
>>>>>>
>>>>> Great! I think it has enough value that I'd like to see XmlRpcPlugin
>>>>> eventually become a component of the Bloodhound distribution.
>>>>>
>>>> AFAICR trac-dev was also considering merging that plugin into Trac
>>>> core once upon a time .
>>>>
>>>> Considering some plans and schedule for proposals (i.e. BEPs) this
>>>> seems to be imminent . Of course , they'd have to be fleshed out and
>>>> accepted first . Still in the fridge though .
>>>>
>>>>>> After reviewing the state of xmlrpcplugin trunk , now I tried to run
>>>>>> its test suite . This is what I got
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I'm curious : what's the estimated time to bring contrib folder
>>>>>> back into BH trunk ? <= if such estimation is possible of course .
>>>>> There is a ticket (1) for adding license headers to the files in
>>>> 'contrib'
>>>>> and some other directories, and I felt that I took ticket as far as I
>>>> could
>>>>> without additional input from a Trac developer. Most everything looked
>>>> fine
>>>>> in terms of being able to put a BSD 3-Clause license on all, or nearly
>>>> all,
>>>>> of the files in 'contrib', but I'm not optimistic that there will
>>>>> be any
>>>>> status changes of the ticket for a while.
>>>>>
>>>> ... a law of Trac inertia ... they have other important things to do
>>>> too . For our own sake let's keep them focused on releasing high
>>>> quality code ;)
>>>>
>>>>> So if everyone agrees that we have a good case for adding back
>>>> 'contrib', I
>>>>> favor doing that and just removing it from the release tarball,
>>>> considering
>>>>> Brane said this would work okay.
>>>>>
>>>> if this triggers a vote , fwiw +1
>>> Since there were no further comments to those by Olemis and Brane, I
>>> went
>>> ahead and restored `contrib` in r1469291.
>>>
>> I should clearly have said something earlier :)
>>
>> I think we are fine for the moment with this but if we once again need
>> to remove this at release time, even if only in the release artefacts,
>> we have only solved the problem for ourselves. If the ETA for
>> restoring contrib properly is far away, we might want to find another
>> solution to this so that users can also run the tests.
> The solution is, for example:
>
> svn export http://subversion.apache.org/repos/asf/bloodhound/tags/x.y.z/trac/contrib
>
> called optionally from the bloodhound installer script.
>
> Or even export directly from the core trac repository at a particular
> version.
>
> -- Brane
>
Not a bad idea.. I would probably still go with dropping contrib from
trunk again for the next release if Trac do not solve the issue for us,
but we could do the optional export from
http://subversion.apache.org/repos/asf/bloodhound/vendor/trac/x.y.z/contrib
For this to work, it seems to rely on the assumption that the user has
subversion installed and that the user will know to run the installer in
a certain way to allow the tests to run. That we are probably
considering helping out a fairly small audience who would run the tests
here might make this kind of approach ok as long as they can find the
required information.
I wonder if it would be wrong to ask for the XmlRpcPlugin maintainers to
resolve the issue by making sure that any required contrib files are
available. Another alternative would be to vendor branch the plugin
specifically to fix that. I am assuming that the XmlRpcPlugin is
something we will want to include at some point.
Cheers,
Gary
Re: ETA for bringing contrib folder back to trunk
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>.
On 18.04.2013 14:38, Gary Martin wrote:
> On 18/04/13 13:23, Ryan Ollos wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/15/13, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi !
>>>>>
>>>>> During the week end I created at Bibucket a fork of Trac XmlRpcPlugin
>>>>> to add in there compatibility for Bloodhound . We need that to
>>>>> integrate some desktop applications with issue tracker , but there
>>>>> are
>>>>> other applications even for our own use .
>>>>>
>>>> Great! I think it has enough value that I'd like to see XmlRpcPlugin
>>>> eventually become a component of the Bloodhound distribution.
>>>>
>>> AFAICR trac-dev was also considering merging that plugin into Trac
>>> core once upon a time .
>>>
>>> Considering some plans and schedule for proposals (i.e. BEPs) this
>>> seems to be imminent . Of course , they'd have to be fleshed out and
>>> accepted first . Still in the fridge though .
>>>
>>>>> After reviewing the state of xmlrpcplugin trunk , now I tried to run
>>>>> its test suite . This is what I got
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> So I'm curious : what's the estimated time to bring contrib folder
>>>>> back into BH trunk ? <= if such estimation is possible of course .
>>>>
>>>> There is a ticket (1) for adding license headers to the files in
>>> 'contrib'
>>>> and some other directories, and I felt that I took ticket as far as I
>>> could
>>>> without additional input from a Trac developer. Most everything looked
>>> fine
>>>> in terms of being able to put a BSD 3-Clause license on all, or nearly
>>> all,
>>>> of the files in 'contrib', but I'm not optimistic that there will
>>>> be any
>>>> status changes of the ticket for a while.
>>>>
>>> ... a law of Trac inertia ... they have other important things to do
>>> too . For our own sake let's keep them focused on releasing high
>>> quality code ;)
>>>
>>>> So if everyone agrees that we have a good case for adding back
>>> 'contrib', I
>>>> favor doing that and just removing it from the release tarball,
>>> considering
>>>> Brane said this would work okay.
>>>>
>>> if this triggers a vote , fwiw +1
>>
>> Since there were no further comments to those by Olemis and Brane, I
>> went
>> ahead and restored `contrib` in r1469291.
>>
>
> I should clearly have said something earlier :)
>
> I think we are fine for the moment with this but if we once again need
> to remove this at release time, even if only in the release artefacts,
> we have only solved the problem for ourselves. If the ETA for
> restoring contrib properly is far away, we might want to find another
> solution to this so that users can also run the tests.
The solution is, for example:
svn export http://subversion.apache.org/repos/asf/bloodhound/tags/x.y.z/trac/contrib
called optionally from the bloodhound installer script.
Or even export directly from the core trac repository at a particular
version.
-- Brane
--
Branko Čibej
Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com
Re: ETA for bringing contrib folder back to trunk
Posted by Gary Martin <ga...@wandisco.com>.
On 18/04/13 13:23, Ryan Ollos wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/15/13, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi !
>>>>
>>>> During the week end I created at Bibucket a fork of Trac XmlRpcPlugin
>>>> to add in there compatibility for Bloodhound . We need that to
>>>> integrate some desktop applications with issue tracker , but there are
>>>> other applications even for our own use .
>>>>
>>> Great! I think it has enough value that I'd like to see XmlRpcPlugin
>>> eventually become a component of the Bloodhound distribution.
>>>
>> AFAICR trac-dev was also considering merging that plugin into Trac
>> core once upon a time .
>>
>> Considering some plans and schedule for proposals (i.e. BEPs) this
>> seems to be imminent . Of course , they'd have to be fleshed out and
>> accepted first . Still in the fridge though .
>>
>>>> After reviewing the state of xmlrpcplugin trunk , now I tried to run
>>>> its test suite . This is what I got
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> So I'm curious : what's the estimated time to bring contrib folder
>>>> back into BH trunk ? <= if such estimation is possible of course .
>>>
>>> There is a ticket (1) for adding license headers to the files in
>> 'contrib'
>>> and some other directories, and I felt that I took ticket as far as I
>> could
>>> without additional input from a Trac developer. Most everything looked
>> fine
>>> in terms of being able to put a BSD 3-Clause license on all, or nearly
>> all,
>>> of the files in 'contrib', but I'm not optimistic that there will be any
>>> status changes of the ticket for a while.
>>>
>> ... a law of Trac inertia ... they have other important things to do
>> too . For our own sake let's keep them focused on releasing high
>> quality code ;)
>>
>>> So if everyone agrees that we have a good case for adding back
>> 'contrib', I
>>> favor doing that and just removing it from the release tarball,
>> considering
>>> Brane said this would work okay.
>>>
>> if this triggers a vote , fwiw +1
>
> Since there were no further comments to those by Olemis and Brane, I went
> ahead and restored `contrib` in r1469291.
>
I should clearly have said something earlier :)
I think we are fine for the moment with this but if we once again need
to remove this at release time, even if only in the release artefacts,
we have only solved the problem for ourselves. If the ETA for restoring
contrib properly is far away, we might want to find another solution to
this so that users can also run the tests.
Cheers,
Gary
Re: ETA for bringing contrib folder back to trunk
Posted by Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>.
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/15/13, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi !
> >>
> >> During the week end I created at Bibucket a fork of Trac XmlRpcPlugin
> >> to add in there compatibility for Bloodhound . We need that to
> >> integrate some desktop applications with issue tracker , but there are
> >> other applications even for our own use .
> >>
> >
> > Great! I think it has enough value that I'd like to see XmlRpcPlugin
> > eventually become a component of the Bloodhound distribution.
> >
>
> AFAICR trac-dev was also considering merging that plugin into Trac
> core once upon a time .
>
> Considering some plans and schedule for proposals (i.e. BEPs) this
> seems to be imminent . Of course , they'd have to be fleshed out and
> accepted first . Still in the fridge though .
>
> >
> >> After reviewing the state of xmlrpcplugin trunk , now I tried to run
> >> its test suite . This is what I got
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> So I'm curious : what's the estimated time to bring contrib folder
> >> back into BH trunk ? <= if such estimation is possible of course .
> >
> >
> > There is a ticket (1) for adding license headers to the files in
> 'contrib'
> > and some other directories, and I felt that I took ticket as far as I
> could
> > without additional input from a Trac developer. Most everything looked
> fine
> > in terms of being able to put a BSD 3-Clause license on all, or nearly
> all,
> > of the files in 'contrib', but I'm not optimistic that there will be any
> > status changes of the ticket for a while.
> >
>
> ... a law of Trac inertia ... they have other important things to do
> too . For our own sake let's keep them focused on releasing high
> quality code ;)
>
> > So if everyone agrees that we have a good case for adding back
> 'contrib', I
> > favor doing that and just removing it from the release tarball,
> considering
> > Brane said this would work okay.
> >
>
> if this triggers a vote , fwiw +1
Since there were no further comments to those by Olemis and Brane, I went
ahead and restored `contrib` in r1469291.
Re: ETA for bringing contrib folder back to trunk
Posted by Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com>.
On 4/15/13, Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi !
>>
>> During the week end I created at Bibucket a fork of Trac XmlRpcPlugin
>> to add in there compatibility for Bloodhound . We need that to
>> integrate some desktop applications with issue tracker , but there are
>> other applications even for our own use .
>>
>
> Great! I think it has enough value that I'd like to see XmlRpcPlugin
> eventually become a component of the Bloodhound distribution.
>
AFAICR trac-dev was also considering merging that plugin into Trac
core once upon a time .
Considering some plans and schedule for proposals (i.e. BEPs) this
seems to be imminent . Of course , they'd have to be fleshed out and
accepted first . Still in the fridge though .
>
>> After reviewing the state of xmlrpcplugin trunk , now I tried to run
>> its test suite . This is what I got
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> So I'm curious : what's the estimated time to bring contrib folder
>> back into BH trunk ? <= if such estimation is possible of course .
>
>
> There is a ticket (1) for adding license headers to the files in 'contrib'
> and some other directories, and I felt that I took ticket as far as I could
> without additional input from a Trac developer. Most everything looked fine
> in terms of being able to put a BSD 3-Clause license on all, or nearly all,
> of the files in 'contrib', but I'm not optimistic that there will be any
> status changes of the ticket for a while.
>
... a law of Trac inertia ... they have other important things to do
too . For our own sake let's keep them focused on releasing high
quality code ;)
> So if everyone agrees that we have a good case for adding back 'contrib', I
> favor doing that and just removing it from the release tarball, considering
> Brane said this would work okay.
>
if this triggers a vote , fwiw +1
--
Regards,
Olemis.
Re: ETA for bringing contrib folder back to trunk
Posted by Ryan Ollos <ry...@wandisco.com>.
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi !
>
> During the week end I created at Bibucket a fork of Trac XmlRpcPlugin
> to add in there compatibility for Bloodhound . We need that to
> integrate some desktop applications with issue tracker , but there are
> other applications even for our own use .
>
Great! I think it has enough value that I'd like to see XmlRpcPlugin
eventually become a component of the Bloodhound distribution.
> After reviewing the state of xmlrpcplugin trunk , now I tried to run
> its test suite . This is what I got
>
> [...]
>
> So I'm curious : what's the estimated time to bring contrib folder
> back into BH trunk ? <= if such estimation is possible of course .
There is a ticket (1) for adding license headers to the files in 'contrib'
and some other directories, and I felt that I took ticket as far as I could
without additional input from a Trac developer. Most everything looked fine
in terms of being able to put a BSD 3-Clause license on all, or nearly all,
of the files in 'contrib', but I'm not optimistic that there will be any
status changes of the ticket for a while.
So if everyone agrees that we have a good case for adding back 'contrib', I
favor doing that and just removing it from the release tarball, considering
Brane said this would work okay.
(1) http://trac.edgewall.org/ticket/11006
Re: ETA for bringing contrib folder back to trunk
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>.
On 16.04.2013 05:57, Olemis Lang wrote:
> On 4/15/13, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>> On 16.04.2013 02:54, Olemis Lang wrote:
>>> So I'm curious : what's the estimated time to bring contrib folder
>>> back into BH trunk ? <= if such estimation is possible of course .
>> To be clear: there's nothing wrong with having the contrib folder in
>> SVN. However, we do have to remove it from the tarballs we release.
>>
> AFAICR this happened after @gstein insisting [1]_ on the fact that he
> «really dislike tags that differ from the archive; it means the tag is
> not a true copy of the release» .
I agree with Greg. However, deleting the contrib dir from the tag can be
a valid part of the release process. That doesn't mean it can't be on
trunk and on the release branches.
-- Brane
--
Branko Čibej
Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com
Re: ETA for bringing contrib folder back to trunk
Posted by Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com>.
On 4/15/13, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 16.04.2013 02:54, Olemis Lang wrote:
>> So I'm curious : what's the estimated time to bring contrib folder
>> back into BH trunk ? <= if such estimation is possible of course .
>
> To be clear: there's nothing wrong with having the contrib folder in
> SVN. However, we do have to remove it from the tarballs we release.
>
AFAICR this happened after @gstein insisting [1]_ on the fact that he
«really dislike tags that differ from the archive; it means the tag is
not a true copy of the release» . However if testing plugins code
depends on code in this folder then afaict there is a «good reason» to
make an exception and keep it in trunk , isn't it ? In production such
artifacts will be gone , but in development environment they'll still
be handy .
Considering @brane's reply and facts mentioned above :
- Is it possible to bring contrib folder back into trunk any time soon ?
I'd like to start working on Bloodhound RPC since tomorrow and it'd be
very nice not to keep this patch under my pillow every time I switch
back and forth to develop and test this or any other plugin .
I look forward to your comments .
.. [1] contrib/ (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound 0.5 (incubating))
(http://goo.gl/MdnmS)
--
Regards,
Olemis.
Re: ETA for bringing contrib folder back to trunk
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>.
On 16.04.2013 02:54, Olemis Lang wrote:
> So I'm curious : what's the estimated time to bring contrib folder
> back into BH trunk ? <= if such estimation is possible of course .
To be clear: there's nothing wrong with having the contrib folder in
SVN. However, we do have to remove it from the tarballs we release.
-- Brane
--
Branko Čibej
Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com