You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@continuum.apache.org by Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com> on 2007/03/07 18:52:30 UTC
Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Ok, well the little poll thread I made seemed to be strongly in favor
of getting things pulled together to start getting alpha releases out
of continuum. So with that in mind here is a list of a few things
that we need to get in order for an alpha release that I shamelessly
started base on bretts comments
- properly mark up the model as it was for 1.0.3 release
- add methods to continuum-data-management to utilise that and then
make any necessary transformations (c-d-m will do the basic 1-to-1
conversions)
- probably write a little CLI to fire it off.
- vet jira for a 1.1 alpha 1 release version and maybe schedule out a
couple of alpha-# releases.
I think I'll start in on the data management bit now since that seems
like the biggest hurdle. I am not convinced we really need to worry
about a continuum 1.0.3 -> continuum 1.1 migration ability...its not a
difficult thing to get projects loaded back up into continuum...but
we'll see I guess.
anyone have anything to add?
jesse
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org>.
On 3/13/07, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> > do we want to release the final 1.1 in 2050?
>
> I think you might need to help with the definition of 'constructive'
> criticism :)
it's just my english that is badly :p
>
> > This is how it looks to me from outside, as I didn't have time lately
> > to work on Continuum.
>
> /me throws back the peanuts :D
/me likes peanuts
>
> - Brett
>
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com>.
hm, thats a great way to do it, thanks wendy..
I'll just call the vote then :)
jesse
On 4/20/07, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/20/07, Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What do you guys think? just call a vote on it and get it pushed into
> > the wild or can we just do the alpha's like this through the staging
> > setup?
>
> The vote makes it an official release tha can be annouced on the user
> list. Whether to put it on the mirrors is a separate issue.
>
> Many projects use people.apache.org/builds for both snapshots and
> releases that aren't mirrored for whatever reason. I created
> people.a.o/maven/archiva for archiva-0.9-alpha-1 (which remains a
> development build.)
>
> How about putting it under
> http://people.apache.org/builds/maven/continuum/1.1-alpha-1 ?
>
> BTW, please make sure it contains LICENSE and NOTICE. I don't see
> them in my last Continuum build.
>
> --
> Wendy
>
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Emmanuel Venisse <em...@venisse.net>.
Even if it's a minor releases, we need to put them in the repo, because we're under the Maven umbrella so it's better if we respect the Maven philosophy.
My 2 cents.
Emmanuel
Jesse McConnell a écrit :
> well, my thought is that its not like anyone would be coding against
> the modules in continuum as a dependency, so why bother putting these
> minor releases into the main repositories? We don't even deploy
> updated snapshots of continuum modules much if at all..
>
> jesse
>
> On 4/20/07, Emmanuel Venisse <em...@venisse.net> wrote:
>> I don't think it's a pb to release alpha in 2 weeks and put them in
>> the main repo.
>>
>> Emmanuel
>>
>> Jesse McConnell a écrit :
>> > well, I think it will bridge the gap really...its an official release
>> > in that it has tags and was generated through the release process, but
>> > I hesitate to shove it out into the main repositories only to follow
>> > up with an alpha 2 in a few weeks..
>> >
>> > jesse
>> >
>> > On 4/20/07, Rahul Thakur <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Since this would be a proper release (not a build), I'd imagine this
>> >> going on to the main repository (and subsequently mirrored).
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Rahul
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: "Wendy Smoak" <ws...@gmail.com>
>> >> To: <co...@maven.apache.org>
>> >> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 7:14 AM
>> >> Subject: Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > On 4/20/07, Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> What do you guys think? just call a vote on it and get it pushed
>> into
>> >> >> the wild or can we just do the alpha's like this through the
>> staging
>> >> >> setup?
>> >> >
>> >> > The vote makes it an official release tha can be annouced on the
>> user
>> >> > list. Whether to put it on the mirrors is a separate issue.
>> >> >
>> >> > Many projects use people.apache.org/builds for both snapshots and
>> >> > releases that aren't mirrored for whatever reason. I created
>> >> > people.a.o/maven/archiva for archiva-0.9-alpha-1 (which remains a
>> >> > development build.)
>> >> >
>> >> > How about putting it under
>> >> > http://people.apache.org/builds/maven/continuum/1.1-alpha-1 ?
>> >> >
>> >> > BTW, please make sure it contains LICENSE and NOTICE. I don't see
>> >> > them in my last Continuum build.
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Wendy
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com>.
well, my thought is that its not like anyone would be coding against
the modules in continuum as a dependency, so why bother putting these
minor releases into the main repositories? We don't even deploy
updated snapshots of continuum modules much if at all..
jesse
On 4/20/07, Emmanuel Venisse <em...@venisse.net> wrote:
> I don't think it's a pb to release alpha in 2 weeks and put them in the main repo.
>
> Emmanuel
>
> Jesse McConnell a écrit :
> > well, I think it will bridge the gap really...its an official release
> > in that it has tags and was generated through the release process, but
> > I hesitate to shove it out into the main repositories only to follow
> > up with an alpha 2 in a few weeks..
> >
> > jesse
> >
> > On 4/20/07, Rahul Thakur <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Since this would be a proper release (not a build), I'd imagine this
> >> going on to the main repository (and subsequently mirrored).
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Rahul
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Wendy Smoak" <ws...@gmail.com>
> >> To: <co...@maven.apache.org>
> >> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 7:14 AM
> >> Subject: Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
> >>
> >>
> >> > On 4/20/07, Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> What do you guys think? just call a vote on it and get it pushed into
> >> >> the wild or can we just do the alpha's like this through the staging
> >> >> setup?
> >> >
> >> > The vote makes it an official release tha can be annouced on the user
> >> > list. Whether to put it on the mirrors is a separate issue.
> >> >
> >> > Many projects use people.apache.org/builds for both snapshots and
> >> > releases that aren't mirrored for whatever reason. I created
> >> > people.a.o/maven/archiva for archiva-0.9-alpha-1 (which remains a
> >> > development build.)
> >> >
> >> > How about putting it under
> >> > http://people.apache.org/builds/maven/continuum/1.1-alpha-1 ?
> >> >
> >> > BTW, please make sure it contains LICENSE and NOTICE. I don't see
> >> > them in my last Continuum build.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Wendy
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Emmanuel Venisse <em...@venisse.net>.
I don't think it's a pb to release alpha in 2 weeks and put them in the main repo.
Emmanuel
Jesse McConnell a écrit :
> well, I think it will bridge the gap really...its an official release
> in that it has tags and was generated through the release process, but
> I hesitate to shove it out into the main repositories only to follow
> up with an alpha 2 in a few weeks..
>
> jesse
>
> On 4/20/07, Rahul Thakur <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Since this would be a proper release (not a build), I'd imagine this
>> going on to the main repository (and subsequently mirrored).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rahul
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Wendy Smoak" <ws...@gmail.com>
>> To: <co...@maven.apache.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 7:14 AM
>> Subject: Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
>>
>>
>> > On 4/20/07, Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> What do you guys think? just call a vote on it and get it pushed into
>> >> the wild or can we just do the alpha's like this through the staging
>> >> setup?
>> >
>> > The vote makes it an official release tha can be annouced on the user
>> > list. Whether to put it on the mirrors is a separate issue.
>> >
>> > Many projects use people.apache.org/builds for both snapshots and
>> > releases that aren't mirrored for whatever reason. I created
>> > people.a.o/maven/archiva for archiva-0.9-alpha-1 (which remains a
>> > development build.)
>> >
>> > How about putting it under
>> > http://people.apache.org/builds/maven/continuum/1.1-alpha-1 ?
>> >
>> > BTW, please make sure it contains LICENSE and NOTICE. I don't see
>> > them in my last Continuum build.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Wendy
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com>.
well, I think it will bridge the gap really...its an official release
in that it has tags and was generated through the release process, but
I hesitate to shove it out into the main repositories only to follow
up with an alpha 2 in a few weeks..
jesse
On 4/20/07, Rahul Thakur <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since this would be a proper release (not a build), I'd imagine this
> going on to the main repository (and subsequently mirrored).
>
> Cheers,
> Rahul
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wendy Smoak" <ws...@gmail.com>
> To: <co...@maven.apache.org>
> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 7:14 AM
> Subject: Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
>
>
> > On 4/20/07, Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> What do you guys think? just call a vote on it and get it pushed into
> >> the wild or can we just do the alpha's like this through the staging
> >> setup?
> >
> > The vote makes it an official release tha can be annouced on the user
> > list. Whether to put it on the mirrors is a separate issue.
> >
> > Many projects use people.apache.org/builds for both snapshots and
> > releases that aren't mirrored for whatever reason. I created
> > people.a.o/maven/archiva for archiva-0.9-alpha-1 (which remains a
> > development build.)
> >
> > How about putting it under
> > http://people.apache.org/builds/maven/continuum/1.1-alpha-1 ?
> >
> > BTW, please make sure it contains LICENSE and NOTICE. I don't see
> > them in my last Continuum build.
> >
> > --
> > Wendy
>
>
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Rahul Thakur <ra...@gmail.com>.
Since this would be a proper release (not a build), I'd imagine this
going on to the main repository (and subsequently mirrored).
Cheers,
Rahul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wendy Smoak" <ws...@gmail.com>
To: <co...@maven.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 7:14 AM
Subject: Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
> On 4/20/07, Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What do you guys think? just call a vote on it and get it pushed into
>> the wild or can we just do the alpha's like this through the staging
>> setup?
>
> The vote makes it an official release tha can be annouced on the user
> list. Whether to put it on the mirrors is a separate issue.
>
> Many projects use people.apache.org/builds for both snapshots and
> releases that aren't mirrored for whatever reason. I created
> people.a.o/maven/archiva for archiva-0.9-alpha-1 (which remains a
> development build.)
>
> How about putting it under
> http://people.apache.org/builds/maven/continuum/1.1-alpha-1 ?
>
> BTW, please make sure it contains LICENSE and NOTICE. I don't see
> them in my last Continuum build.
>
> --
> Wendy
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>.
On 4/20/07, Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What do you guys think? just call a vote on it and get it pushed into
> the wild or can we just do the alpha's like this through the staging
> setup?
The vote makes it an official release tha can be annouced on the user
list. Whether to put it on the mirrors is a separate issue.
Many projects use people.apache.org/builds for both snapshots and
releases that aren't mirrored for whatever reason. I created
people.a.o/maven/archiva for archiva-0.9-alpha-1 (which remains a
development build.)
How about putting it under
http://people.apache.org/builds/maven/continuum/1.1-alpha-1 ?
BTW, please make sure it contains LICENSE and NOTICE. I don't see
them in my last Continuum build.
--
Wendy
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com>.
might as well just use this thread...
I have continuum 1.1 alpha 1 staged now...but I have one concern about
calling a vote on this and making it official...
Its kinda big (16M war, 25M plexus app) and I still don't really feel
comfortable releasing something like continuum as an alpha into the
main repositories.
its currently staged at:
http://people.apache.org/~jmcconnell/continuum
What do you guys think? just call a vote on it and get it pushed into
the wild or can we just do the alpha's like this through the staging
setup?
jesse
On 3/30/07, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 31/03/2007, at 6:50 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
>
> > I'm ok for a timestamped version, but we can release the release
> > manager too, without the plugin because it isn't ready and I want
> > the new Maven-SCM in it.
>
> We're not set up to have snapshots in place permanently, so I don't
> think we should use a timestamped one.
>
> I'd agree with releasing just the shared release component.
>
> >
> > The pb is that release-manager use maven-scm 1.0-SNAPSHOT, we can
> > use 1.0-beta-4 because the release manager doesn't use new code of
> > maven-scm but we won't have maven-scm fixes. Or we can use a
> > timestamped version of Maven-SCM too. If we choose the timestamped
> > version of Maven-SCM, Continuum need to use it.
>
> I think we could cut another beta of Maven SCM now with the recent
> fixes before you push towards 1.0 as discussed on that list.
>
> Cheers,
> Brett
>
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
On 31/03/2007, at 6:50 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
> I'm ok for a timestamped version, but we can release the release
> manager too, without the plugin because it isn't ready and I want
> the new Maven-SCM in it.
We're not set up to have snapshots in place permanently, so I don't
think we should use a timestamped one.
I'd agree with releasing just the shared release component.
>
> The pb is that release-manager use maven-scm 1.0-SNAPSHOT, we can
> use 1.0-beta-4 because the release manager doesn't use new code of
> maven-scm but we won't have maven-scm fixes. Or we can use a
> timestamped version of Maven-SCM too. If we choose the timestamped
> version of Maven-SCM, Continuum need to use it.
I think we could cut another beta of Maven SCM now with the recent
fixes before you push towards 1.0 as discussed on that list.
Cheers,
Brett
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Emmanuel Venisse <em...@venisse.net>.
I'm ok for a timestamped version, but we can release the release manager too, without the plugin because it isn't ready and I want the new Maven-SCM in it.
The pb is that release-manager use maven-scm 1.0-SNAPSHOT, we can use 1.0-beta-4 because the release manager doesn't use new code of maven-scm but we won't have maven-scm fixes. Or we can use a
timestamped version of Maven-SCM too. If we choose the timestamped version of Maven-SCM, Continuum need to use it.
Emmanuel
Jesse McConnell a écrit :
> with maven-app-configuration released I thought we were well on our
> way to getting a release of continuum cut, but Emmanuel pointed out
> that I had missing the latest SNAPSHOT of the maven release stuff.
>
> Does anyone have an issues with my resolving the maven-release version
> to the latest timestamped snapshot version and cutting the release
> with that?
>
> jesse
>
> On 3/21/07, Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> All outstanding jira tickets that were under 1.1-alpha-1 have been
>> resolved...
>>
>> I am going to put together the dependencies that need to be released
>> and get those on track for release now and then we can stage and call
>> a vote on the first alpha of continuum 1.1
>>
>> jesse
>>
>> On 3/20/07, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 20/03/2007, at 6:45 AM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
>> >
>> > > ok, I am changing my tune on the remaining 11 issues, I want this
>> > > thing released asap so we have something concrete to get moving on.
>> > > The 11 issues are functionally no real different then a lot of the
>> > > ones in the -2 jira so I am thinking we just push that forward and
>> get
>> > > going on this.
>> >
>> > Sounds good to me.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > so, I haven't actually pulled a release on something like this at
>> > > apache, from what I understand we can put this someplace for
>> > > downloading that doesn't have to get mirrored all over the place.
>> > > more information please brett...
>> >
>> > We have, in the past, deployed alphas to the regular deployment
>> > location.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Should we vote on this? I think we have an implict consent based on
>> > > just this thread from committers but should this alpha cycle take a
>> > > vote each push, or can we vote on a biweekly release schedule for
>> > > alphas for the next month or two?
>> >
>> > Yes, if it's a release we should vote on it.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > if we get this decided I'll arrange the dependencies and get this
>> > > thing alpha release dealio running asap.
>> >
>> > Cool
>> >
>> > - Brett
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> jesse mcconnell
>> jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
>>
>
>
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com>.
with maven-app-configuration released I thought we were well on our
way to getting a release of continuum cut, but Emmanuel pointed out
that I had missing the latest SNAPSHOT of the maven release stuff.
Does anyone have an issues with my resolving the maven-release version
to the latest timestamped snapshot version and cutting the release
with that?
jesse
On 3/21/07, Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All outstanding jira tickets that were under 1.1-alpha-1 have been resolved...
>
> I am going to put together the dependencies that need to be released
> and get those on track for release now and then we can stage and call
> a vote on the first alpha of continuum 1.1
>
> jesse
>
> On 3/20/07, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 20/03/2007, at 6:45 AM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
> >
> > > ok, I am changing my tune on the remaining 11 issues, I want this
> > > thing released asap so we have something concrete to get moving on.
> > > The 11 issues are functionally no real different then a lot of the
> > > ones in the -2 jira so I am thinking we just push that forward and get
> > > going on this.
> >
> > Sounds good to me.
> >
> > >
> > > so, I haven't actually pulled a release on something like this at
> > > apache, from what I understand we can put this someplace for
> > > downloading that doesn't have to get mirrored all over the place.
> > > more information please brett...
> >
> > We have, in the past, deployed alphas to the regular deployment
> > location.
> >
> > >
> > > Should we vote on this? I think we have an implict consent based on
> > > just this thread from committers but should this alpha cycle take a
> > > vote each push, or can we vote on a biweekly release schedule for
> > > alphas for the next month or two?
> >
> > Yes, if it's a release we should vote on it.
> >
> > >
> > > if we get this decided I'll arrange the dependencies and get this
> > > thing alpha release dealio running asap.
> >
> > Cool
> >
> > - Brett
> >
>
>
> --
> jesse mcconnell
> jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
>
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com>.
All outstanding jira tickets that were under 1.1-alpha-1 have been resolved...
I am going to put together the dependencies that need to be released
and get those on track for release now and then we can stage and call
a vote on the first alpha of continuum 1.1
jesse
On 3/20/07, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 20/03/2007, at 6:45 AM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
>
> > ok, I am changing my tune on the remaining 11 issues, I want this
> > thing released asap so we have something concrete to get moving on.
> > The 11 issues are functionally no real different then a lot of the
> > ones in the -2 jira so I am thinking we just push that forward and get
> > going on this.
>
> Sounds good to me.
>
> >
> > so, I haven't actually pulled a release on something like this at
> > apache, from what I understand we can put this someplace for
> > downloading that doesn't have to get mirrored all over the place.
> > more information please brett...
>
> We have, in the past, deployed alphas to the regular deployment
> location.
>
> >
> > Should we vote on this? I think we have an implict consent based on
> > just this thread from committers but should this alpha cycle take a
> > vote each push, or can we vote on a biweekly release schedule for
> > alphas for the next month or two?
>
> Yes, if it's a release we should vote on it.
>
> >
> > if we get this decided I'll arrange the dependencies and get this
> > thing alpha release dealio running asap.
>
> Cool
>
> - Brett
>
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
On 20/03/2007, at 6:45 AM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
> ok, I am changing my tune on the remaining 11 issues, I want this
> thing released asap so we have something concrete to get moving on.
> The 11 issues are functionally no real different then a lot of the
> ones in the -2 jira so I am thinking we just push that forward and get
> going on this.
Sounds good to me.
>
> so, I haven't actually pulled a release on something like this at
> apache, from what I understand we can put this someplace for
> downloading that doesn't have to get mirrored all over the place.
> more information please brett...
We have, in the past, deployed alphas to the regular deployment
location.
>
> Should we vote on this? I think we have an implict consent based on
> just this thread from committers but should this alpha cycle take a
> vote each push, or can we vote on a biweekly release schedule for
> alphas for the next month or two?
Yes, if it's a release we should vote on it.
>
> if we get this decided I'll arrange the dependencies and get this
> thing alpha release dealio running asap.
Cool
- Brett
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Thierry Lach <th...@gmail.com>.
for what my opinion matters, I'm in favor of the bi-weekly schedule.
On 3/19/07, Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ok, I am changing my tune on the remaining 11 issues, I want this
> thing released asap so we have something concrete to get moving on.
> The 11 issues are functionally no real different then a lot of the
> ones in the -2 jira so I am thinking we just push that forward and get
> going on this.
>
> so, I haven't actually pulled a release on something like this at
> apache, from what I understand we can put this someplace for
> downloading that doesn't have to get mirrored all over the place.
> more information please brett...
>
> Should we vote on this? I think we have an implict consent based on
> just this thread from committers but should this alpha cycle take a
> vote each push, or can we vote on a biweekly release schedule for
> alphas for the next month or two?
>
> if we get this decided I'll arrange the dependencies and get this
> thing alpha release dealio running asap.
>
> jesse
>
> On 3/15/07, Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > yes, you are also correct on that, great point
> >
> > On 3/15/07, Thierry Lach <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Of the unresolved issues for 1.1-alpha-any, 108 of them are against
> some
> > > version of continuum 1.0 and might not apply to continuum-1.1, but
> someone
> > > is going to have to verify that.
> > >
> > > On 3/13/07, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 12/03/2007, at 7:35 AM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 13/03/2007, at 10:31 AM, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> > > > > These are the numbers I see in jira right now
> > > > > 1.1-alpha-1 11
> > > > > 1.1-alpha-2 72
> > > > > 1.1-alpha-# 156
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > jesse mcconnell
> > jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
> >
>
>
> --
> jesse mcconnell
> jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
>
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com>.
ok, I am changing my tune on the remaining 11 issues, I want this
thing released asap so we have something concrete to get moving on.
The 11 issues are functionally no real different then a lot of the
ones in the -2 jira so I am thinking we just push that forward and get
going on this.
so, I haven't actually pulled a release on something like this at
apache, from what I understand we can put this someplace for
downloading that doesn't have to get mirrored all over the place.
more information please brett...
Should we vote on this? I think we have an implict consent based on
just this thread from committers but should this alpha cycle take a
vote each push, or can we vote on a biweekly release schedule for
alphas for the next month or two?
if we get this decided I'll arrange the dependencies and get this
thing alpha release dealio running asap.
jesse
On 3/15/07, Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> yes, you are also correct on that, great point
>
> On 3/15/07, Thierry Lach <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Of the unresolved issues for 1.1-alpha-any, 108 of them are against some
> > version of continuum 1.0 and might not apply to continuum-1.1, but someone
> > is going to have to verify that.
> >
> > On 3/13/07, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/03/2007, at 7:35 AM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
> > >
> > > On 13/03/2007, at 10:31 AM, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> > > > These are the numbers I see in jira right now
> > > > 1.1-alpha-1 11
> > > > 1.1-alpha-2 72
> > > > 1.1-alpha-# 156
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> jesse mcconnell
> jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
>
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com>.
yes, you are also correct on that, great point
On 3/15/07, Thierry Lach <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Of the unresolved issues for 1.1-alpha-any, 108 of them are against some
> version of continuum 1.0 and might not apply to continuum-1.1, but someone
> is going to have to verify that.
>
> On 3/13/07, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 12/03/2007, at 7:35 AM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
> >
> > On 13/03/2007, at 10:31 AM, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> > > These are the numbers I see in jira right now
> > > 1.1-alpha-1 11
> > > 1.1-alpha-2 72
> > > 1.1-alpha-# 156
> >
> >
>
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Thierry Lach <th...@gmail.com>.
Of the unresolved issues for 1.1-alpha-any, 108 of them are against some
version of continuum 1.0 and might not apply to continuum-1.1, but someone
is going to have to verify that.
On 3/13/07, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 12/03/2007, at 7:35 AM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
>
> On 13/03/2007, at 10:31 AM, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> > These are the numbers I see in jira right now
> > 1.1-alpha-1 11
> > 1.1-alpha-2 72
> > 1.1-alpha-# 156
>
>
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
On 12/03/2007, at 7:35 AM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
>
> having to resolve the snapshot dependencies are precisely the reason I
> didn't want to mess with the maven release plugin for this. I would
> have to release a new plexus-security and probably a couple of other
> little higgly piggly bits. I think we can get by with the timestamped
> SNAPSHOT dependencies for these things, means we can release alpha's
> more frequently as well since we don't have to deal with
> micro-releasing the dependencies each time.
I think its worth doing a proper release. I think we have to if we
intend to publish it to anyone as a binary so that we know what they
really have.
It will also drive us to do small, consumable releases of those
components and not upgrade to the latest plexus-kitchensink.
On 13/03/2007, at 10:31 AM, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> These are the numbers I see in jira right now
> 1.1-alpha-1 11
> 1.1-alpha-2 72
> 1.1-alpha-# 156
Yeah, I think these are both a bit aggressive. But let's worry about
the first alpha and see how people respond.
> do we want to release the final 1.1 in 2050?
I think you might need to help with the definition of 'constructive'
criticism :)
> This is how it looks to me from outside, as I didn't have time lately
> to work on Continuum.
/me throws back the peanuts :D
- Brett
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Trygve Laugstøl <tr...@apache.org>.
Jesse McConnell wrote:
>> > I think we shouldn't worry about making these actually releases cut
>> > with the maven-release-plugin. I say we just make a build and get it
>> > available for download. Also tag the continuum trunk accordingly.
>> > Then we ought to try to release a new alpha every few weeks until we
>> > have the alpha-# issues converging towards 0.
>>
>> Why not? Using the Maven plugin is generally easier than doing it by
>> hand. Only issue that comes to mind are snapshots dependencies.
>
> having to resolve the snapshot dependencies are precisely the reason I
> didn't want to mess with the maven release plugin for this. I would
> have to release a new plexus-security and probably a couple of other
> little higgly piggly bits. I think we can get by with the timestamped
> SNAPSHOT dependencies for these things, means we can release alpha's
> more frequently as well since we don't have to deal with
> micro-releasing the dependencies each time.
+1 for timestamped snapshots.
Can we get these pushed to the releases repository so it's possible to
build the alpha later? Or perhaps we don't care about the exact
reproducibility of the alphas? People can build the dependent sources
from subversion after all (yay open source).
>> Seems like a good pick, but I have a couple of comments:
>>
>> CONTINUUM-253: why? can't it be done after the release?
>
> it can, it is just done partially in a couple of places and I thought
> it might be nice to have that all collated together, but yes..it can
> be pushed a bit
I'm just trying to push, it's totally up to you as you're doing the work
and I'm just bitching.
>> CONTINUUM-827: sounds to me like this is something that can take a
>> while, is it worth waiting for? Remember that the target for the next
>> alpha should be within a month.
>
> fine by me :)
>
>> What is the time estimate on completing all of the issues?
>
> I want to see this pushed this week and then every couple of weeks
> from here on out.
Shibby.
--
Trygve
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com>.
> > I think we shouldn't worry about making these actually releases cut
> > with the maven-release-plugin. I say we just make a build and get it
> > available for download. Also tag the continuum trunk accordingly.
> > Then we ought to try to release a new alpha every few weeks until we
> > have the alpha-# issues converging towards 0.
>
> Why not? Using the Maven plugin is generally easier than doing it by
> hand. Only issue that comes to mind are snapshots dependencies.
having to resolve the snapshot dependencies are precisely the reason I
didn't want to mess with the maven release plugin for this. I would
have to release a new plexus-security and probably a couple of other
little higgly piggly bits. I think we can get by with the timestamped
SNAPSHOT dependencies for these things, means we can release alpha's
more frequently as well since we don't have to deal with
micro-releasing the dependencies each time.
> Seems like a good pick, but I have a couple of comments:
>
> CONTINUUM-253: why? can't it be done after the release?
it can, it is just done partially in a couple of places and I thought
it might be nice to have that all collated together, but yes..it can
be pushed a bit
> CONTINUUM-827: sounds to me like this is something that can take a
> while, is it worth waiting for? Remember that the target for the next
> alpha should be within a month.
fine by me :)
> What is the time estimate on completing all of the issues?
I want to see this pushed this week and then every couple of weeks
from here on out.
jesse
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Trygve Laugstøl <tr...@apache.org>.
Jesse McConnell wrote:
> I have gone through jira issues there were assigned to 1.1 and spread
> things out a bit.
>
> here is my criteria I used in separating out the issues:
>
> 1.1-alpha-1 -> issues that need to be addressed asap before we pull
> any kinda alpha
> 1.1-alpha-2 -> higher importance issues and ones generally related to
> xml-rpc
> 1.1-alpha-# -> issues that probably ought to be resolved in the alpha
> releases
> Future -> stuff that probably ain't going to get done any day soon
>
> the idea being that we can make new sequential release issues off of
> the 1.1-alpha-# release tag until we are done with alpha releases. I
> think once 1.1-alpha-1 is released then we can go through 1.1-alpha-2
> and decide what should be done, make a new release called 1.1-alpha-3
> and bulk move issues that aren't going to be addressed then (like
> maybe all the xml-rpc issues)
>
> I think we shouldn't worry about making these actually releases cut
> with the maven-release-plugin. I say we just make a build and get it
> available for download. Also tag the continuum trunk accordingly.
> Then we ought to try to release a new alpha every few weeks until we
> have the alpha-# issues converging towards 0.
Why not? Using the Maven plugin is generally easier than doing it by
hand. Only issue that comes to mind are snapshots dependencies.
> When we actually get to beta/rc releases then we can cut actual releases.
>
> Now about my allocation of issues, its not gospel! If you disagree
> with any of my assigning of fix versions then just fix it yourself
> (the version, or better yet the bug).
>
> At the time of this writing I have the 1.1-alpha-1 release down to a
> modest 8 issues with a few of those questionable and/or waiting for a
> bit of feedback. I have yet to go through the 200 or so unfiled
> issues though so that might go up a bit, I'll do that now.
Seems like a good pick, but I have a couple of comments:
CONTINUUM-253: why? can't it be done after the release?
CONTINUUM-827: sounds to me like this is something that can take a
while, is it worth waiting for? Remember that the target for the next
alpha should be within a month.
What is the time estimate on completing all of the issues?
--
Trygve
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com>.
ok, I'll plow through the rest of the uncategorized issues now :)
jesse
On 3/12/07, Thierry Lach <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd like to see the JBoss integration
> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/CONTINUUM-1167 added somewhere in the alpha
> process.
>
> On 3/12/07, Erik Bengtson <er...@jpox.org> wrote:
> >
> > CLOB is supported by most of the databases, and Oracle is the only one
> > with
> > a particular API rather than plain JDBC
> >
> > Quoting Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Isn't Oracle the only database to offer a CLOB?
> > >
> > > I think writing it to a file in the build results directory like the
> > > other output makes perfect sense. Unless we are planning to search
> > > them, but then maybe lucene is a better choice anyway.
> > >
> > > Hmm, indexed and correlated build failures. I like that idea. Shiny. /
> > > me loses focus.
> > >
> > > - Brett
> > >
> > > On 12/03/2007, at 2:09 AM, Trygve Laugstøl wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jesse McConnell wrote:
> > > >> sounds good to me, imo either trunc it or maybe switch the model over
> > > >> to a clob for that in the db...
> > > >
> > > > I tried to make it a CLOB once but couldn't get it to work because
> > > > of some JPOX issues IIRC so for alpha-1 just chop the exception and/
> > > > or write it to a separate file and put the ideal solution into a
> > > > later alpha.
> > > >
> > > > Keep moving!
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Trygve
> > > >
> > > >> jesse
> > > >> On 3/9/07, Stephane Nicoll <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>> On 3/9/07, Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>> > I have gone through jira issues there were assigned to 1.1 and
> > > >>> spread
> > > >>> > things out a bit.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > here is my criteria I used in separating out the issues:
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > 1.1-alpha-1 -> issues that need to be addressed asap before we
> > > >>> pull
> > > >>> > any kinda alpha
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Not because I opened this but I think CONTINUUM-1194 should be
> > > >>> fixed.
> > > >>> I'll try to provide a patch this sunday for this. As a summary,
> > > >>> if an
> > > >>> error occurs and the stacktrace is higher than 8000 chars:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> * The build is stuck in Build In Progress
> > > >>> * No notification is triggered (an error has occured?!)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks,
> > > >>> Stéphane
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> > 1.1-alpha-2 -> higher importance issues and ones generally
> > > >>> related to xml-rpc
> > > >>> > 1.1-alpha-# -> issues that probably ought to be resolved in the
> > > >>> alpha releases
> > > >>> > Future -> stuff that probably ain't going to get done any day soon
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > the idea being that we can make new sequential release issues
> > > >>> off of
> > > >>> > the 1.1-alpha-# release tag until we are done with alpha
> > > >>> releases. I
> > > >>> > think once 1.1-alpha-1 is released then we can go through 1.1-
> > > >>> alpha-2
> > > >>> > and decide what should be done, make a new release called 1.1-
> > > >>> alpha-3
> > > >>> > and bulk move issues that aren't going to be addressed then (like
> > > >>> > maybe all the xml-rpc issues)
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > I think we shouldn't worry about making these actually releases
> > > >>> cut
> > > >>> > with the maven-release-plugin. I say we just make a build and
> > > >>> get it
> > > >>> > available for download. Also tag the continuum trunk accordingly.
> >
> > > >>> > Then we ought to try to release a new alpha every few weeks
> > > >>> until we
> > > >>> > have the alpha-# issues converging towards 0.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > When we actually get to beta/rc releases then we can cut actual
> > > >>> releases.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > Now about my allocation of issues, its not gospel! If you
> > > >>> disagree
> > > >>> > with any of my assigning of fix versions then just fix it yourself
> >
> > > >>> > (the version, or better yet the bug).
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > At the time of this writing I have the 1.1-alpha-1 release down
> > > >>> to a
> > > >>> > modest 8 issues with a few of those questionable and/or waiting
> > > >>> for a
> > > >>> > bit of feedback. I have yet to go through the 200 or so unfiled
> > > >>> > issues though so that might go up a bit, I'll do that now.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > thoughts?
> > > >>> > jesse
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > On 3/7/07, Emmanuel Venisse < emmanuel@venisse.net> wrote:
> > > >>> > > We don't need it the migration tool now. We'll can see to it
> > > >>> when we'll release a first beta on rc.
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > Emmanuel
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > Brett Porter a écrit :
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > On 07/03/2007, at 9:52 AM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > >> Ok, well the little poll thread I made seemed to be
> > > >>> strongly in favor
> > > >>> > > >> of getting things pulled together to start getting alpha
> > > >>> releases out
> > > >>> > > >> of continuum. So with that in mind here is a list of a
> > > >>> few things
> > > >>> > > >> that we need to get in order for an alpha release that I
> > > >>> shamelessly
> > > >>> > > >> started base on bretts comments
> > > >>> > > >>
> > > >>> > > >> - properly mark up the model as it was for 1.0.3 release
> > > >>> > > >> - add methods to continuum-data-management to utilise that
> > > >>> and then
> > > >>> > > >> make any necessary transformations (c-d-m will do the
> > > >>> basic 1-to-1
> > > >>> > > >> conversions)
> > > >>> > > >> - probably write a little CLI to fire it off.
> > > >>> > > >> - vet jira for a 1.1 alpha 1 release version and maybe
> > > >>> schedule out a
> > > >>> > > >> couple of alpha-# releases.
> > > >>> > > >>
> > > >>> > > >> I think I'll start in on the data management bit now since
> > > >>> that seems
> > > >>> > > >> like the biggest hurdle. I am not convinced we really
> > > >>> need to worry
> > > >>> > > >> about a continuum 1.0.3 -> continuum 1.1 migration
> > > >>> ability...its not a
> > > >>> > > >> difficult thing to get projects loaded back up into
> > > >>> continuum...but
> > > >>> > > >> we'll see I guess.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > It is a pain, but having said that we could potentially add
> > > >>> it in a
> > > >>> > > > later milestone. I wouldn't want a final version without it.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > >>
> > > >>> > > >> anyone have anything to add?
> > > >>> > > >>
> > > >>> > > >> jesse
> > > >>> > > >>
> > > >>> > > >> --jesse mcconnell
> > > >>> > > >> jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > --
> > > >>> > jesse mcconnell
> > > >>> > jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Thierry Lach <th...@gmail.com>.
I'd like to see the JBoss integration
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/CONTINUUM-1167 added somewhere in the alpha
process.
On 3/12/07, Erik Bengtson <er...@jpox.org> wrote:
>
> CLOB is supported by most of the databases, and Oracle is the only one
> with
> a particular API rather than plain JDBC
>
> Quoting Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>:
>
> > Isn't Oracle the only database to offer a CLOB?
> >
> > I think writing it to a file in the build results directory like the
> > other output makes perfect sense. Unless we are planning to search
> > them, but then maybe lucene is a better choice anyway.
> >
> > Hmm, indexed and correlated build failures. I like that idea. Shiny. /
> > me loses focus.
> >
> > - Brett
> >
> > On 12/03/2007, at 2:09 AM, Trygve Laugstøl wrote:
> >
> > > Jesse McConnell wrote:
> > >> sounds good to me, imo either trunc it or maybe switch the model over
> > >> to a clob for that in the db...
> > >
> > > I tried to make it a CLOB once but couldn't get it to work because
> > > of some JPOX issues IIRC so for alpha-1 just chop the exception and/
> > > or write it to a separate file and put the ideal solution into a
> > > later alpha.
> > >
> > > Keep moving!
> > >
> > > --
> > > Trygve
> > >
> > >> jesse
> > >> On 3/9/07, Stephane Nicoll <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> On 3/9/07, Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> > I have gone through jira issues there were assigned to 1.1 and
> > >>> spread
> > >>> > things out a bit.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > here is my criteria I used in separating out the issues:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > 1.1-alpha-1 -> issues that need to be addressed asap before we
> > >>> pull
> > >>> > any kinda alpha
> > >>>
> > >>> Not because I opened this but I think CONTINUUM-1194 should be
> > >>> fixed.
> > >>> I'll try to provide a patch this sunday for this. As a summary,
> > >>> if an
> > >>> error occurs and the stacktrace is higher than 8000 chars:
> > >>>
> > >>> * The build is stuck in Build In Progress
> > >>> * No notification is triggered (an error has occured?!)
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Stéphane
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> > 1.1-alpha-2 -> higher importance issues and ones generally
> > >>> related to xml-rpc
> > >>> > 1.1-alpha-# -> issues that probably ought to be resolved in the
> > >>> alpha releases
> > >>> > Future -> stuff that probably ain't going to get done any day soon
> > >>> >
> > >>> > the idea being that we can make new sequential release issues
> > >>> off of
> > >>> > the 1.1-alpha-# release tag until we are done with alpha
> > >>> releases. I
> > >>> > think once 1.1-alpha-1 is released then we can go through 1.1-
> > >>> alpha-2
> > >>> > and decide what should be done, make a new release called 1.1-
> > >>> alpha-3
> > >>> > and bulk move issues that aren't going to be addressed then (like
> > >>> > maybe all the xml-rpc issues)
> > >>> >
> > >>> > I think we shouldn't worry about making these actually releases
> > >>> cut
> > >>> > with the maven-release-plugin. I say we just make a build and
> > >>> get it
> > >>> > available for download. Also tag the continuum trunk accordingly.
>
> > >>> > Then we ought to try to release a new alpha every few weeks
> > >>> until we
> > >>> > have the alpha-# issues converging towards 0.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > When we actually get to beta/rc releases then we can cut actual
> > >>> releases.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Now about my allocation of issues, its not gospel! If you
> > >>> disagree
> > >>> > with any of my assigning of fix versions then just fix it yourself
>
> > >>> > (the version, or better yet the bug).
> > >>> >
> > >>> > At the time of this writing I have the 1.1-alpha-1 release down
> > >>> to a
> > >>> > modest 8 issues with a few of those questionable and/or waiting
> > >>> for a
> > >>> > bit of feedback. I have yet to go through the 200 or so unfiled
> > >>> > issues though so that might go up a bit, I'll do that now.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > thoughts?
> > >>> > jesse
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> > On 3/7/07, Emmanuel Venisse < emmanuel@venisse.net> wrote:
> > >>> > > We don't need it the migration tool now. We'll can see to it
> > >>> when we'll release a first beta on rc.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > Emmanuel
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > Brett Porter a écrit :
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > On 07/03/2007, at 9:52 AM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > >> Ok, well the little poll thread I made seemed to be
> > >>> strongly in favor
> > >>> > > >> of getting things pulled together to start getting alpha
> > >>> releases out
> > >>> > > >> of continuum. So with that in mind here is a list of a
> > >>> few things
> > >>> > > >> that we need to get in order for an alpha release that I
> > >>> shamelessly
> > >>> > > >> started base on bretts comments
> > >>> > > >>
> > >>> > > >> - properly mark up the model as it was for 1.0.3 release
> > >>> > > >> - add methods to continuum-data-management to utilise that
> > >>> and then
> > >>> > > >> make any necessary transformations (c-d-m will do the
> > >>> basic 1-to-1
> > >>> > > >> conversions)
> > >>> > > >> - probably write a little CLI to fire it off.
> > >>> > > >> - vet jira for a 1.1 alpha 1 release version and maybe
> > >>> schedule out a
> > >>> > > >> couple of alpha-# releases.
> > >>> > > >>
> > >>> > > >> I think I'll start in on the data management bit now since
> > >>> that seems
> > >>> > > >> like the biggest hurdle. I am not convinced we really
> > >>> need to worry
> > >>> > > >> about a continuum 1.0.3 -> continuum 1.1 migration
> > >>> ability...its not a
> > >>> > > >> difficult thing to get projects loaded back up into
> > >>> continuum...but
> > >>> > > >> we'll see I guess.
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > It is a pain, but having said that we could potentially add
> > >>> it in a
> > >>> > > > later milestone. I wouldn't want a final version without it.
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > >>
> > >>> > > >> anyone have anything to add?
> > >>> > > >>
> > >>> > > >> jesse
> > >>> > > >>
> > >>> > > >> --jesse mcconnell
> > >>> > > >> jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> > --
> > >>> > jesse mcconnell
> > >>> > jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Erik Bengtson <er...@jpox.org>.
CLOB is supported by most of the databases, and Oracle is the only one with
a particular API rather than plain JDBC
Quoting Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>:
> Isn't Oracle the only database to offer a CLOB?
>
> I think writing it to a file in the build results directory like the
> other output makes perfect sense. Unless we are planning to search
> them, but then maybe lucene is a better choice anyway.
>
> Hmm, indexed and correlated build failures. I like that idea. Shiny. /
> me loses focus.
>
> - Brett
>
> On 12/03/2007, at 2:09 AM, Trygve Laugstøl wrote:
>
> > Jesse McConnell wrote:
> >> sounds good to me, imo either trunc it or maybe switch the model over
> >> to a clob for that in the db...
> >
> > I tried to make it a CLOB once but couldn't get it to work because
> > of some JPOX issues IIRC so for alpha-1 just chop the exception and/
> > or write it to a separate file and put the ideal solution into a
> > later alpha.
> >
> > Keep moving!
> >
> > --
> > Trygve
> >
> >> jesse
> >> On 3/9/07, Stephane Nicoll <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 3/9/07, Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > I have gone through jira issues there were assigned to 1.1 and
> >>> spread
> >>> > things out a bit.
> >>> >
> >>> > here is my criteria I used in separating out the issues:
> >>> >
> >>> > 1.1-alpha-1 -> issues that need to be addressed asap before we
> >>> pull
> >>> > any kinda alpha
> >>>
> >>> Not because I opened this but I think CONTINUUM-1194 should be
> >>> fixed.
> >>> I'll try to provide a patch this sunday for this. As a summary,
> >>> if an
> >>> error occurs and the stacktrace is higher than 8000 chars:
> >>>
> >>> * The build is stuck in Build In Progress
> >>> * No notification is triggered (an error has occured?!)
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Stéphane
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> > 1.1-alpha-2 -> higher importance issues and ones generally
> >>> related to xml-rpc
> >>> > 1.1-alpha-# -> issues that probably ought to be resolved in the
> >>> alpha releases
> >>> > Future -> stuff that probably ain't going to get done any day soon
> >>> >
> >>> > the idea being that we can make new sequential release issues
> >>> off of
> >>> > the 1.1-alpha-# release tag until we are done with alpha
> >>> releases. I
> >>> > think once 1.1-alpha-1 is released then we can go through 1.1-
> >>> alpha-2
> >>> > and decide what should be done, make a new release called 1.1-
> >>> alpha-3
> >>> > and bulk move issues that aren't going to be addressed then (like
> >>> > maybe all the xml-rpc issues)
> >>> >
> >>> > I think we shouldn't worry about making these actually releases
> >>> cut
> >>> > with the maven-release-plugin. I say we just make a build and
> >>> get it
> >>> > available for download. Also tag the continuum trunk accordingly.
> >>> > Then we ought to try to release a new alpha every few weeks
> >>> until we
> >>> > have the alpha-# issues converging towards 0.
> >>> >
> >>> > When we actually get to beta/rc releases then we can cut actual
> >>> releases.
> >>> >
> >>> > Now about my allocation of issues, its not gospel! If you
> >>> disagree
> >>> > with any of my assigning of fix versions then just fix it yourself
> >>> > (the version, or better yet the bug).
> >>> >
> >>> > At the time of this writing I have the 1.1-alpha-1 release down
> >>> to a
> >>> > modest 8 issues with a few of those questionable and/or waiting
> >>> for a
> >>> > bit of feedback. I have yet to go through the 200 or so unfiled
> >>> > issues though so that might go up a bit, I'll do that now.
> >>> >
> >>> > thoughts?
> >>> > jesse
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On 3/7/07, Emmanuel Venisse <em...@venisse.net> wrote:
> >>> > > We don't need it the migration tool now. We'll can see to it
> >>> when we'll release a first beta on rc.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Emmanuel
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Brett Porter a écrit :
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > On 07/03/2007, at 9:52 AM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >> Ok, well the little poll thread I made seemed to be
> >>> strongly in favor
> >>> > > >> of getting things pulled together to start getting alpha
> >>> releases out
> >>> > > >> of continuum. So with that in mind here is a list of a
> >>> few things
> >>> > > >> that we need to get in order for an alpha release that I
> >>> shamelessly
> >>> > > >> started base on bretts comments
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >> - properly mark up the model as it was for 1.0.3 release
> >>> > > >> - add methods to continuum-data-management to utilise that
> >>> and then
> >>> > > >> make any necessary transformations (c-d-m will do the
> >>> basic 1-to-1
> >>> > > >> conversions)
> >>> > > >> - probably write a little CLI to fire it off.
> >>> > > >> - vet jira for a 1.1 alpha 1 release version and maybe
> >>> schedule out a
> >>> > > >> couple of alpha-# releases.
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >> I think I'll start in on the data management bit now since
> >>> that seems
> >>> > > >> like the biggest hurdle. I am not convinced we really
> >>> need to worry
> >>> > > >> about a continuum 1.0.3 -> continuum 1.1 migration
> >>> ability...its not a
> >>> > > >> difficult thing to get projects loaded back up into
> >>> continuum...but
> >>> > > >> we'll see I guess.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > It is a pain, but having said that we could potentially add
> >>> it in a
> >>> > > > later milestone. I wouldn't want a final version without it.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >> anyone have anything to add?
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >> jesse
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >> --jesse mcconnell
> >>> > > >> jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > jesse mcconnell
> >>> > jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
> >>> >
> >>>
>
>
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
Isn't Oracle the only database to offer a CLOB?
I think writing it to a file in the build results directory like the
other output makes perfect sense. Unless we are planning to search
them, but then maybe lucene is a better choice anyway.
Hmm, indexed and correlated build failures. I like that idea. Shiny. /
me loses focus.
- Brett
On 12/03/2007, at 2:09 AM, Trygve Laugstøl wrote:
> Jesse McConnell wrote:
>> sounds good to me, imo either trunc it or maybe switch the model over
>> to a clob for that in the db...
>
> I tried to make it a CLOB once but couldn't get it to work because
> of some JPOX issues IIRC so for alpha-1 just chop the exception and/
> or write it to a separate file and put the ideal solution into a
> later alpha.
>
> Keep moving!
>
> --
> Trygve
>
>> jesse
>> On 3/9/07, Stephane Nicoll <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/9/07, Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > I have gone through jira issues there were assigned to 1.1 and
>>> spread
>>> > things out a bit.
>>> >
>>> > here is my criteria I used in separating out the issues:
>>> >
>>> > 1.1-alpha-1 -> issues that need to be addressed asap before we
>>> pull
>>> > any kinda alpha
>>>
>>> Not because I opened this but I think CONTINUUM-1194 should be
>>> fixed.
>>> I'll try to provide a patch this sunday for this. As a summary,
>>> if an
>>> error occurs and the stacktrace is higher than 8000 chars:
>>>
>>> * The build is stuck in Build In Progress
>>> * No notification is triggered (an error has occured?!)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Stéphane
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > 1.1-alpha-2 -> higher importance issues and ones generally
>>> related to xml-rpc
>>> > 1.1-alpha-# -> issues that probably ought to be resolved in the
>>> alpha releases
>>> > Future -> stuff that probably ain't going to get done any day soon
>>> >
>>> > the idea being that we can make new sequential release issues
>>> off of
>>> > the 1.1-alpha-# release tag until we are done with alpha
>>> releases. I
>>> > think once 1.1-alpha-1 is released then we can go through 1.1-
>>> alpha-2
>>> > and decide what should be done, make a new release called 1.1-
>>> alpha-3
>>> > and bulk move issues that aren't going to be addressed then (like
>>> > maybe all the xml-rpc issues)
>>> >
>>> > I think we shouldn't worry about making these actually releases
>>> cut
>>> > with the maven-release-plugin. I say we just make a build and
>>> get it
>>> > available for download. Also tag the continuum trunk accordingly.
>>> > Then we ought to try to release a new alpha every few weeks
>>> until we
>>> > have the alpha-# issues converging towards 0.
>>> >
>>> > When we actually get to beta/rc releases then we can cut actual
>>> releases.
>>> >
>>> > Now about my allocation of issues, its not gospel! If you
>>> disagree
>>> > with any of my assigning of fix versions then just fix it yourself
>>> > (the version, or better yet the bug).
>>> >
>>> > At the time of this writing I have the 1.1-alpha-1 release down
>>> to a
>>> > modest 8 issues with a few of those questionable and/or waiting
>>> for a
>>> > bit of feedback. I have yet to go through the 200 or so unfiled
>>> > issues though so that might go up a bit, I'll do that now.
>>> >
>>> > thoughts?
>>> > jesse
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 3/7/07, Emmanuel Venisse <em...@venisse.net> wrote:
>>> > > We don't need it the migration tool now. We'll can see to it
>>> when we'll release a first beta on rc.
>>> > >
>>> > > Emmanuel
>>> > >
>>> > > Brett Porter a écrit :
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On 07/03/2007, at 9:52 AM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > >> Ok, well the little poll thread I made seemed to be
>>> strongly in favor
>>> > > >> of getting things pulled together to start getting alpha
>>> releases out
>>> > > >> of continuum. So with that in mind here is a list of a
>>> few things
>>> > > >> that we need to get in order for an alpha release that I
>>> shamelessly
>>> > > >> started base on bretts comments
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> - properly mark up the model as it was for 1.0.3 release
>>> > > >> - add methods to continuum-data-management to utilise that
>>> and then
>>> > > >> make any necessary transformations (c-d-m will do the
>>> basic 1-to-1
>>> > > >> conversions)
>>> > > >> - probably write a little CLI to fire it off.
>>> > > >> - vet jira for a 1.1 alpha 1 release version and maybe
>>> schedule out a
>>> > > >> couple of alpha-# releases.
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> I think I'll start in on the data management bit now since
>>> that seems
>>> > > >> like the biggest hurdle. I am not convinced we really
>>> need to worry
>>> > > >> about a continuum 1.0.3 -> continuum 1.1 migration
>>> ability...its not a
>>> > > >> difficult thing to get projects loaded back up into
>>> continuum...but
>>> > > >> we'll see I guess.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > It is a pain, but having said that we could potentially add
>>> it in a
>>> > > > later milestone. I wouldn't want a final version without it.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> anyone have anything to add?
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> jesse
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> --jesse mcconnell
>>> > > >> jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > jesse mcconnell
>>> > jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
>>> >
>>>
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Trygve Laugstøl <tr...@apache.org>.
Jesse McConnell wrote:
> sounds good to me, imo either trunc it or maybe switch the model over
> to a clob for that in the db...
I tried to make it a CLOB once but couldn't get it to work because of
some JPOX issues IIRC so for alpha-1 just chop the exception and/or
write it to a separate file and put the ideal solution into a later alpha.
Keep moving!
--
Trygve
> jesse
>
> On 3/9/07, Stephane Nicoll <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/9/07, Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I have gone through jira issues there were assigned to 1.1 and spread
>> > things out a bit.
>> >
>> > here is my criteria I used in separating out the issues:
>> >
>> > 1.1-alpha-1 -> issues that need to be addressed asap before we pull
>> > any kinda alpha
>>
>> Not because I opened this but I think CONTINUUM-1194 should be fixed.
>> I'll try to provide a patch this sunday for this. As a summary, if an
>> error occurs and the stacktrace is higher than 8000 chars:
>>
>> * The build is stuck in Build In Progress
>> * No notification is triggered (an error has occured?!)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Stéphane
>>
>>
>>
>> > 1.1-alpha-2 -> higher importance issues and ones generally related
>> to xml-rpc
>> > 1.1-alpha-# -> issues that probably ought to be resolved in the
>> alpha releases
>> > Future -> stuff that probably ain't going to get done any day soon
>> >
>> > the idea being that we can make new sequential release issues off of
>> > the 1.1-alpha-# release tag until we are done with alpha releases. I
>> > think once 1.1-alpha-1 is released then we can go through 1.1-alpha-2
>> > and decide what should be done, make a new release called 1.1-alpha-3
>> > and bulk move issues that aren't going to be addressed then (like
>> > maybe all the xml-rpc issues)
>> >
>> > I think we shouldn't worry about making these actually releases cut
>> > with the maven-release-plugin. I say we just make a build and get it
>> > available for download. Also tag the continuum trunk accordingly.
>> > Then we ought to try to release a new alpha every few weeks until we
>> > have the alpha-# issues converging towards 0.
>> >
>> > When we actually get to beta/rc releases then we can cut actual
>> releases.
>> >
>> > Now about my allocation of issues, its not gospel! If you disagree
>> > with any of my assigning of fix versions then just fix it yourself
>> > (the version, or better yet the bug).
>> >
>> > At the time of this writing I have the 1.1-alpha-1 release down to a
>> > modest 8 issues with a few of those questionable and/or waiting for a
>> > bit of feedback. I have yet to go through the 200 or so unfiled
>> > issues though so that might go up a bit, I'll do that now.
>> >
>> > thoughts?
>> > jesse
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 3/7/07, Emmanuel Venisse <em...@venisse.net> wrote:
>> > > We don't need it the migration tool now. We'll can see to it when
>> we'll release a first beta on rc.
>> > >
>> > > Emmanuel
>> > >
>> > > Brett Porter a écrit :
>> > > >
>> > > > On 07/03/2007, at 9:52 AM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Ok, well the little poll thread I made seemed to be strongly in
>> favor
>> > > >> of getting things pulled together to start getting alpha
>> releases out
>> > > >> of continuum. So with that in mind here is a list of a few things
>> > > >> that we need to get in order for an alpha release that I
>> shamelessly
>> > > >> started base on bretts comments
>> > > >>
>> > > >> - properly mark up the model as it was for 1.0.3 release
>> > > >> - add methods to continuum-data-management to utilise that and
>> then
>> > > >> make any necessary transformations (c-d-m will do the basic 1-to-1
>> > > >> conversions)
>> > > >> - probably write a little CLI to fire it off.
>> > > >> - vet jira for a 1.1 alpha 1 release version and maybe schedule
>> out a
>> > > >> couple of alpha-# releases.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I think I'll start in on the data management bit now since that
>> seems
>> > > >> like the biggest hurdle. I am not convinced we really need to
>> worry
>> > > >> about a continuum 1.0.3 -> continuum 1.1 migration
>> ability...its not a
>> > > >> difficult thing to get projects loaded back up into
>> continuum...but
>> > > >> we'll see I guess.
>> > > >
>> > > > It is a pain, but having said that we could potentially add it in a
>> > > > later milestone. I wouldn't want a final version without it.
>> > > >
>> > > >>
>> > > >> anyone have anything to add?
>> > > >>
>> > > >> jesse
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --jesse mcconnell
>> > > >> jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > jesse mcconnell
>> > jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com>.
sounds good to me, imo either trunc it or maybe switch the model over
to a clob for that in the db...
jesse
On 3/9/07, Stephane Nicoll <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/9/07, Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have gone through jira issues there were assigned to 1.1 and spread
> > things out a bit.
> >
> > here is my criteria I used in separating out the issues:
> >
> > 1.1-alpha-1 -> issues that need to be addressed asap before we pull
> > any kinda alpha
>
> Not because I opened this but I think CONTINUUM-1194 should be fixed.
> I'll try to provide a patch this sunday for this. As a summary, if an
> error occurs and the stacktrace is higher than 8000 chars:
>
> * The build is stuck in Build In Progress
> * No notification is triggered (an error has occured?!)
>
> Thanks,
> Stéphane
>
>
>
> > 1.1-alpha-2 -> higher importance issues and ones generally related to xml-rpc
> > 1.1-alpha-# -> issues that probably ought to be resolved in the alpha releases
> > Future -> stuff that probably ain't going to get done any day soon
> >
> > the idea being that we can make new sequential release issues off of
> > the 1.1-alpha-# release tag until we are done with alpha releases. I
> > think once 1.1-alpha-1 is released then we can go through 1.1-alpha-2
> > and decide what should be done, make a new release called 1.1-alpha-3
> > and bulk move issues that aren't going to be addressed then (like
> > maybe all the xml-rpc issues)
> >
> > I think we shouldn't worry about making these actually releases cut
> > with the maven-release-plugin. I say we just make a build and get it
> > available for download. Also tag the continuum trunk accordingly.
> > Then we ought to try to release a new alpha every few weeks until we
> > have the alpha-# issues converging towards 0.
> >
> > When we actually get to beta/rc releases then we can cut actual releases.
> >
> > Now about my allocation of issues, its not gospel! If you disagree
> > with any of my assigning of fix versions then just fix it yourself
> > (the version, or better yet the bug).
> >
> > At the time of this writing I have the 1.1-alpha-1 release down to a
> > modest 8 issues with a few of those questionable and/or waiting for a
> > bit of feedback. I have yet to go through the 200 or so unfiled
> > issues though so that might go up a bit, I'll do that now.
> >
> > thoughts?
> > jesse
> >
> >
> >
> > On 3/7/07, Emmanuel Venisse <em...@venisse.net> wrote:
> > > We don't need it the migration tool now. We'll can see to it when we'll release a first beta on rc.
> > >
> > > Emmanuel
> > >
> > > Brett Porter a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > On 07/03/2007, at 9:52 AM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Ok, well the little poll thread I made seemed to be strongly in favor
> > > >> of getting things pulled together to start getting alpha releases out
> > > >> of continuum. So with that in mind here is a list of a few things
> > > >> that we need to get in order for an alpha release that I shamelessly
> > > >> started base on bretts comments
> > > >>
> > > >> - properly mark up the model as it was for 1.0.3 release
> > > >> - add methods to continuum-data-management to utilise that and then
> > > >> make any necessary transformations (c-d-m will do the basic 1-to-1
> > > >> conversions)
> > > >> - probably write a little CLI to fire it off.
> > > >> - vet jira for a 1.1 alpha 1 release version and maybe schedule out a
> > > >> couple of alpha-# releases.
> > > >>
> > > >> I think I'll start in on the data management bit now since that seems
> > > >> like the biggest hurdle. I am not convinced we really need to worry
> > > >> about a continuum 1.0.3 -> continuum 1.1 migration ability...its not a
> > > >> difficult thing to get projects loaded back up into continuum...but
> > > >> we'll see I guess.
> > > >
> > > > It is a pain, but having said that we could potentially add it in a
> > > > later milestone. I wouldn't want a final version without it.
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> anyone have anything to add?
> > > >>
> > > >> jesse
> > > >>
> > > >> --jesse mcconnell
> > > >> jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > jesse mcconnell
> > jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
> >
>
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Stephane Nicoll <st...@gmail.com>.
On 3/9/07, Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have gone through jira issues there were assigned to 1.1 and spread
> things out a bit.
>
> here is my criteria I used in separating out the issues:
>
> 1.1-alpha-1 -> issues that need to be addressed asap before we pull
> any kinda alpha
Not because I opened this but I think CONTINUUM-1194 should be fixed.
I'll try to provide a patch this sunday for this. As a summary, if an
error occurs and the stacktrace is higher than 8000 chars:
* The build is stuck in Build In Progress
* No notification is triggered (an error has occured?!)
Thanks,
Stéphane
> 1.1-alpha-2 -> higher importance issues and ones generally related to xml-rpc
> 1.1-alpha-# -> issues that probably ought to be resolved in the alpha releases
> Future -> stuff that probably ain't going to get done any day soon
>
> the idea being that we can make new sequential release issues off of
> the 1.1-alpha-# release tag until we are done with alpha releases. I
> think once 1.1-alpha-1 is released then we can go through 1.1-alpha-2
> and decide what should be done, make a new release called 1.1-alpha-3
> and bulk move issues that aren't going to be addressed then (like
> maybe all the xml-rpc issues)
>
> I think we shouldn't worry about making these actually releases cut
> with the maven-release-plugin. I say we just make a build and get it
> available for download. Also tag the continuum trunk accordingly.
> Then we ought to try to release a new alpha every few weeks until we
> have the alpha-# issues converging towards 0.
>
> When we actually get to beta/rc releases then we can cut actual releases.
>
> Now about my allocation of issues, its not gospel! If you disagree
> with any of my assigning of fix versions then just fix it yourself
> (the version, or better yet the bug).
>
> At the time of this writing I have the 1.1-alpha-1 release down to a
> modest 8 issues with a few of those questionable and/or waiting for a
> bit of feedback. I have yet to go through the 200 or so unfiled
> issues though so that might go up a bit, I'll do that now.
>
> thoughts?
> jesse
>
>
>
> On 3/7/07, Emmanuel Venisse <em...@venisse.net> wrote:
> > We don't need it the migration tool now. We'll can see to it when we'll release a first beta on rc.
> >
> > Emmanuel
> >
> > Brett Porter a écrit :
> > >
> > > On 07/03/2007, at 9:52 AM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
> > >
> > >> Ok, well the little poll thread I made seemed to be strongly in favor
> > >> of getting things pulled together to start getting alpha releases out
> > >> of continuum. So with that in mind here is a list of a few things
> > >> that we need to get in order for an alpha release that I shamelessly
> > >> started base on bretts comments
> > >>
> > >> - properly mark up the model as it was for 1.0.3 release
> > >> - add methods to continuum-data-management to utilise that and then
> > >> make any necessary transformations (c-d-m will do the basic 1-to-1
> > >> conversions)
> > >> - probably write a little CLI to fire it off.
> > >> - vet jira for a 1.1 alpha 1 release version and maybe schedule out a
> > >> couple of alpha-# releases.
> > >>
> > >> I think I'll start in on the data management bit now since that seems
> > >> like the biggest hurdle. I am not convinced we really need to worry
> > >> about a continuum 1.0.3 -> continuum 1.1 migration ability...its not a
> > >> difficult thing to get projects loaded back up into continuum...but
> > >> we'll see I guess.
> > >
> > > It is a pain, but having said that we could potentially add it in a
> > > later milestone. I wouldn't want a final version without it.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> anyone have anything to add?
> > >>
> > >> jesse
> > >>
> > >> --jesse mcconnell
> > >> jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> jesse mcconnell
> jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
>
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Thierry Lach <th...@gmail.com>.
A couple of things:
1. Once the first alpha is released, why not try to put a new one out
there every week or every two weeks? Anything scheduled for the alpha-2
release (for example) that isn't done could be moved back to alpha-3, and so
on.
2. I'd love to be able to try to provide more than the couple of
simplistic patches that I've managed so far, but I'm running into a number
of technologies that I'm familiar with only in concept that are used in
Continuum, modello and plexus to name the primary ones. It would be nice to
have a brief road-map on how to add certain kinds of features to Continuum,
such as adding a column to a table and adding editing capability to a
specific page.
On 3/13/07, Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> A bit of (constructive) criticism ahead
>
> On 3/9/07, Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have gone through jira issues there were assigned to 1.1 and spread
> > things out a bit.
> >
> > here is my criteria I used in separating out the issues:
> >
> > 1.1-alpha-1 -> issues that need to be addressed asap before we pull
> > any kinda alpha
> > 1.1-alpha-2 -> higher importance issues and ones generally related to
> xml-rpc
> > 1.1-alpha-# -> issues that probably ought to be resolved in the alpha
> releases
> > Future -> stuff that probably ain't going to get done any day soon
>
>
> These are the numbers I see in jira right now
> 1.1-alpha-1 11
> 1.1-alpha-2 72
> 1.1-alpha-# 156
>
> Am I the only one that thinks we are lost?
> 230+ issues before having even a beta?
> do we want to release the final 1.1 in 2050?
<snip/>
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org>.
On 3/13/07, Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> to be perfectly honest, I think there are a number of smelly parts
> inside of continuum right now, I have worked out designs and written
> mails on the subject a number of times to this list, but I haven't had
> the time to just sit down and fix the things I find most annoying, I
> tried with rahul back around xmas but I wasn't able to focus on it
> like I had hoped...so one of my prime motivations in pushing to get
> this released as an alpha is to, as trygve said, just get something
> out there since its been so long. There are a lot of nice
> improvements in continuum, but there are a chunk of nasties that I
> think with the proper time and some motivation we can get ironed out.
exactly, there are smelly parts that you would like to fix, but there
will always be, and that shouldn't block releases. Specially in a
community, people will always find a "better" way to do something that
somebody else did, and that will get you in a vicious cycle of redoing
things.
Anyway I think you got my point, so i'm happy ;)
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com>.
On 3/13/07, Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
> A bit of (constructive) criticism ahead
> These are the numbers I see in jira right now
> 1.1-alpha-1 11
> 1.1-alpha-2 72
> 1.1-alpha-# 156
that is correct, and I frankly don't think there is a hill of beans
chance of resolving all of those. The alpha-1 numbers are mostly
trivial issues that just need to be looked at, the alpha-2 are ones
that I figure we really ought to be addressing since they (largely)
address functionality that ought to be fixed or exist. I see the
alpha-2 ones getting resolved on a hopefully weekly/fortnight
schedule, pushing those issues not resolved forward to alpha-3 until
they are either resolved, or moved into that alpha-# version. If
anyone has an issue in alpha-# they really want resolved they can fix
it and put it in the alpha-2 or 3 or live with it not making it into
release.
perhaps I should rename the alpha-# to 'bucket', stuff that someone
had a problem with and ought to be fixed, that we'll get to if we can,
but its not a blocker or anything.
but you are correct, no way all that will get done
> Am I the only one that thinks we are lost?
> 230+ issues before having even a beta?
> do we want to release the final 1.1 in 2050?
I was thinking 2039, just in time for us to run out of long timestamps
or something
> it shouldn't take us long to get dependencies released, this is our
> process, if the process needs to be improved we can talk about it, but
> apply it only sometimes doesn't sound right
>
I would like us to get out of the habit of forcing releases of
alpha-foo all over the place just to release something that
is...alpha.
so how do we fix _that_? :)
> if nobody takes care of an issue or there's no patch that issue should
> be pushed, period.
> This is a community and if people don't help on their own issues
> and/or they can't convince somebody to help too bad for them.
this is where you hit upon a problem I have with doing issue
triage...I have a real hard time just closing something as 'Can't
Reproduce' or 'As Designed' or whatever...so I just shoved it into
alpha-#...Future was easy, those were new things to design or
whatever...
> i would get alpha 1 out of the door right now, as long as there is no
> blocker issues, I think that's the hint, if there are no blocker
> issues the release can't be blocked, and many people have already
> asked about making a release.
>
>
> This is how it looks to me from outside, as I didn't have time lately
> to work on Continuum.
to be perfectly honest, I think there are a number of smelly parts
inside of continuum right now, I have worked out designs and written
mails on the subject a number of times to this list, but I haven't had
the time to just sit down and fix the things I find most annoying, I
tried with rahul back around xmas but I wasn't able to focus on it
like I had hoped...so one of my prime motivations in pushing to get
this released as an alpha is to, as trygve said, just get something
out there since its been so long. There are a lot of nice
improvements in continuum, but there are a chunk of nasties that I
think with the proper time and some motivation we can get ironed out.
anyway, thats enough for me...
jesse
p.s. and no one has mentioned capturing all the changes into
documentation yet...omg that will be a pain...
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org>.
A bit of (constructive) criticism ahead
On 3/9/07, Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have gone through jira issues there were assigned to 1.1 and spread
> things out a bit.
>
> here is my criteria I used in separating out the issues:
>
> 1.1-alpha-1 -> issues that need to be addressed asap before we pull
> any kinda alpha
> 1.1-alpha-2 -> higher importance issues and ones generally related to xml-rpc
> 1.1-alpha-# -> issues that probably ought to be resolved in the alpha releases
> Future -> stuff that probably ain't going to get done any day soon
These are the numbers I see in jira right now
1.1-alpha-1 11
1.1-alpha-2 72
1.1-alpha-# 156
Am I the only one that thinks we are lost?
230+ issues before having even a beta?
do we want to release the final 1.1 in 2050?
Perfect software doesn't exist, this is getting really out of control.
Any 1.x release that takes more than 3 months should make us think
that something is wrong and we are over planning.
>
> the idea being that we can make new sequential release issues off of
> the 1.1-alpha-# release tag until we are done with alpha releases. I
> think once 1.1-alpha-1 is released then we can go through 1.1-alpha-2
> and decide what should be done, make a new release called 1.1-alpha-3
> and bulk move issues that aren't going to be addressed then (like
> maybe all the xml-rpc issues)
as I said other times we are using alpha as an excuse, if something
breaks then we can say "it was just an alpha". I would say no big
deal, if 1.1 has problems they will be fixed in 1.1.x, it's fine as
long as it doesn't take one year to get it out
>
> I think we shouldn't worry about making these actually releases cut
> with the maven-release-plugin. I say we just make a build and get it
> available for download. Also tag the continuum trunk accordingly.
> Then we ought to try to release a new alpha every few weeks until we
> have the alpha-# issues converging towards 0.
it shouldn't take us long to get dependencies released, this is our
process, if the process needs to be improved we can talk about it, but
apply it only sometimes doesn't sound right
>
> When we actually get to beta/rc releases then we can cut actual releases.
>
> Now about my allocation of issues, its not gospel! If you disagree
> with any of my assigning of fix versions then just fix it yourself
> (the version, or better yet the bug).
if nobody takes care of an issue or there's no patch that issue should
be pushed, period.
This is a community and if people don't help on their own issues
and/or they can't convince somebody to help too bad for them.
>
> At the time of this writing I have the 1.1-alpha-1 release down to a
> modest 8 issues with a few of those questionable and/or waiting for a
> bit of feedback. I have yet to go through the 200 or so unfiled
> issues though so that might go up a bit, I'll do that now.
i would get alpha 1 out of the door right now, as long as there is no
blocker issues, I think that's the hint, if there are no blocker
issues the release can't be blocked, and many people have already
asked about making a release.
This is how it looks to me from outside, as I didn't have time lately
to work on Continuum.
>
> thoughts?
> jesse
>
>
>
> On 3/7/07, Emmanuel Venisse <em...@venisse.net> wrote:
> > We don't need it the migration tool now. We'll can see to it when we'll release a first beta on rc.
> >
> > Emmanuel
> >
> > Brett Porter a écrit :
> > >
> > > On 07/03/2007, at 9:52 AM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
> > >
> > >> Ok, well the little poll thread I made seemed to be strongly in favor
> > >> of getting things pulled together to start getting alpha releases out
> > >> of continuum. So with that in mind here is a list of a few things
> > >> that we need to get in order for an alpha release that I shamelessly
> > >> started base on bretts comments
> > >>
> > >> - properly mark up the model as it was for 1.0.3 release
> > >> - add methods to continuum-data-management to utilise that and then
> > >> make any necessary transformations (c-d-m will do the basic 1-to-1
> > >> conversions)
> > >> - probably write a little CLI to fire it off.
> > >> - vet jira for a 1.1 alpha 1 release version and maybe schedule out a
> > >> couple of alpha-# releases.
> > >>
> > >> I think I'll start in on the data management bit now since that seems
> > >> like the biggest hurdle. I am not convinced we really need to worry
> > >> about a continuum 1.0.3 -> continuum 1.1 migration ability...its not a
> > >> difficult thing to get projects loaded back up into continuum...but
> > >> we'll see I guess.
> > >
> > > It is a pain, but having said that we could potentially add it in a
> > > later milestone. I wouldn't want a final version without it.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> anyone have anything to add?
> > >>
> > >> jesse
> > >>
> > >> --jesse mcconnell
> > >> jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> jesse mcconnell
> jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
>
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com>.
I have gone through jira issues there were assigned to 1.1 and spread
things out a bit.
here is my criteria I used in separating out the issues:
1.1-alpha-1 -> issues that need to be addressed asap before we pull
any kinda alpha
1.1-alpha-2 -> higher importance issues and ones generally related to xml-rpc
1.1-alpha-# -> issues that probably ought to be resolved in the alpha releases
Future -> stuff that probably ain't going to get done any day soon
the idea being that we can make new sequential release issues off of
the 1.1-alpha-# release tag until we are done with alpha releases. I
think once 1.1-alpha-1 is released then we can go through 1.1-alpha-2
and decide what should be done, make a new release called 1.1-alpha-3
and bulk move issues that aren't going to be addressed then (like
maybe all the xml-rpc issues)
I think we shouldn't worry about making these actually releases cut
with the maven-release-plugin. I say we just make a build and get it
available for download. Also tag the continuum trunk accordingly.
Then we ought to try to release a new alpha every few weeks until we
have the alpha-# issues converging towards 0.
When we actually get to beta/rc releases then we can cut actual releases.
Now about my allocation of issues, its not gospel! If you disagree
with any of my assigning of fix versions then just fix it yourself
(the version, or better yet the bug).
At the time of this writing I have the 1.1-alpha-1 release down to a
modest 8 issues with a few of those questionable and/or waiting for a
bit of feedback. I have yet to go through the 200 or so unfiled
issues though so that might go up a bit, I'll do that now.
thoughts?
jesse
On 3/7/07, Emmanuel Venisse <em...@venisse.net> wrote:
> We don't need it the migration tool now. We'll can see to it when we'll release a first beta on rc.
>
> Emmanuel
>
> Brett Porter a écrit :
> >
> > On 07/03/2007, at 9:52 AM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
> >
> >> Ok, well the little poll thread I made seemed to be strongly in favor
> >> of getting things pulled together to start getting alpha releases out
> >> of continuum. So with that in mind here is a list of a few things
> >> that we need to get in order for an alpha release that I shamelessly
> >> started base on bretts comments
> >>
> >> - properly mark up the model as it was for 1.0.3 release
> >> - add methods to continuum-data-management to utilise that and then
> >> make any necessary transformations (c-d-m will do the basic 1-to-1
> >> conversions)
> >> - probably write a little CLI to fire it off.
> >> - vet jira for a 1.1 alpha 1 release version and maybe schedule out a
> >> couple of alpha-# releases.
> >>
> >> I think I'll start in on the data management bit now since that seems
> >> like the biggest hurdle. I am not convinced we really need to worry
> >> about a continuum 1.0.3 -> continuum 1.1 migration ability...its not a
> >> difficult thing to get projects loaded back up into continuum...but
> >> we'll see I guess.
> >
> > It is a pain, but having said that we could potentially add it in a
> > later milestone. I wouldn't want a final version without it.
> >
> >>
> >> anyone have anything to add?
> >>
> >> jesse
> >>
> >> --jesse mcconnell
> >> jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Emmanuel Venisse <em...@venisse.net>.
We don't need it the migration tool now. We'll can see to it when we'll release a first beta on rc.
Emmanuel
Brett Porter a écrit :
>
> On 07/03/2007, at 9:52 AM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
>
>> Ok, well the little poll thread I made seemed to be strongly in favor
>> of getting things pulled together to start getting alpha releases out
>> of continuum. So with that in mind here is a list of a few things
>> that we need to get in order for an alpha release that I shamelessly
>> started base on bretts comments
>>
>> - properly mark up the model as it was for 1.0.3 release
>> - add methods to continuum-data-management to utilise that and then
>> make any necessary transformations (c-d-m will do the basic 1-to-1
>> conversions)
>> - probably write a little CLI to fire it off.
>> - vet jira for a 1.1 alpha 1 release version and maybe schedule out a
>> couple of alpha-# releases.
>>
>> I think I'll start in on the data management bit now since that seems
>> like the biggest hurdle. I am not convinced we really need to worry
>> about a continuum 1.0.3 -> continuum 1.1 migration ability...its not a
>> difficult thing to get projects loaded back up into continuum...but
>> we'll see I guess.
>
> It is a pain, but having said that we could potentially add it in a
> later milestone. I wouldn't want a final version without it.
>
>>
>> anyone have anything to add?
>>
>> jesse
>>
>> --jesse mcconnell
>> jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
>
>
>
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Stephane Nicoll <st...@gmail.com>.
On 3/7/07, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 07/03/2007, at 9:52 AM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
>
> > > I think I'll start in on the data management bit now since that seems
> > like the biggest hurdle. I am not convinced we really need to worry
> > about a continuum 1.0.3 -> continuum 1.1 migration ability...its not a
> > difficult thing to get projects loaded back up into continuum...but
> > we'll see I guess.
>
> It is a pain, but having said that we could potentially add it in a
> later milestone. I wouldn't want a final version without it.
>
+1
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
On 07/03/2007, at 9:52 AM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
> Ok, well the little poll thread I made seemed to be strongly in favor
> of getting things pulled together to start getting alpha releases out
> of continuum. So with that in mind here is a list of a few things
> that we need to get in order for an alpha release that I shamelessly
> started base on bretts comments
>
> - properly mark up the model as it was for 1.0.3 release
> - add methods to continuum-data-management to utilise that and then
> make any necessary transformations (c-d-m will do the basic 1-to-1
> conversions)
> - probably write a little CLI to fire it off.
> - vet jira for a 1.1 alpha 1 release version and maybe schedule out a
> couple of alpha-# releases.
>
> I think I'll start in on the data management bit now since that seems
> like the biggest hurdle. I am not convinced we really need to worry
> about a continuum 1.0.3 -> continuum 1.1 migration ability...its not a
> difficult thing to get projects loaded back up into continuum...but
> we'll see I guess.
It is a pain, but having said that we could potentially add it in a
later milestone. I wouldn't want a final version without it.
>
> anyone have anything to add?
>
> jesse
>
> --
> jesse mcconnell
> jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org>.
i'd say, get the alpha asap and then worry about tooling, people will
request it but hopefully we'll get help when people start trying it.
On 3/7/07, Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, well the little poll thread I made seemed to be strongly in favor
> of getting things pulled together to start getting alpha releases out
> of continuum. So with that in mind here is a list of a few things
> that we need to get in order for an alpha release that I shamelessly
> started base on bretts comments
>
> - properly mark up the model as it was for 1.0.3 release
> - add methods to continuum-data-management to utilise that and then
> make any necessary transformations (c-d-m will do the basic 1-to-1
> conversions)
> - probably write a little CLI to fire it off.
> - vet jira for a 1.1 alpha 1 release version and maybe schedule out a
> couple of alpha-# releases.
>
> I think I'll start in on the data management bit now since that seems
> like the biggest hurdle. I am not convinced we really need to worry
> about a continuum 1.0.3 -> continuum 1.1 migration ability...its not a
> difficult thing to get projects loaded back up into continuum...but
> we'll see I guess.
>
> anyone have anything to add?
>
> jesse
>
> --
> jesse mcconnell
> jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
>
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com>.
well that is a bit of awesome news, thanks erik!
On 3/7/07, Erik Bengtson <er...@jpox.org> wrote:
> FYI, JPOX 1.1.7 will be released next monday. It fixes the issue with postgres.
>
> You can try it out, if you like, before we release.
>
> http://www.jpox.org/downloads/maven/jpox/jars/jpox-1.1-SNAPSHOT.jar
>
> Regards
>
> Quoting Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Ok, well the little poll thread I made seemed to be strongly in favor
> > of getting things pulled together to start getting alpha releases out
> > of continuum. So with that in mind here is a list of a few things
> > that we need to get in order for an alpha release that I shamelessly
> > started base on bretts comments
> >
> > - properly mark up the model as it was for 1.0.3 release
> > - add methods to continuum-data-management to utilise that and then
> > make any necessary transformations (c-d-m will do the basic 1-to-1
> > conversions)
> > - probably write a little CLI to fire it off.
> > - vet jira for a 1.1 alpha 1 release version and maybe schedule out a
> > couple of alpha-# releases.
> >
> > I think I'll start in on the data management bit now since that seems
> > like the biggest hurdle. I am not convinced we really need to worry
> > about a continuum 1.0.3 -> continuum 1.1 migration ability...its not a
> > difficult thing to get projects loaded back up into continuum...but
> > we'll see I guess.
> >
> > anyone have anything to add?
> >
> > jesse
> >
> > --
> > jesse mcconnell
> > jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
> >
>
>
>
>
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
Re: Preparing for continuum-1.1-alpha-1
Posted by Erik Bengtson <er...@jpox.org>.
FYI, JPOX 1.1.7 will be released next monday. It fixes the issue with postgres.
You can try it out, if you like, before we release.
http://www.jpox.org/downloads/maven/jpox/jars/jpox-1.1-SNAPSHOT.jar
Regards
Quoting Jesse McConnell <je...@gmail.com>:
> Ok, well the little poll thread I made seemed to be strongly in favor
> of getting things pulled together to start getting alpha releases out
> of continuum. So with that in mind here is a list of a few things
> that we need to get in order for an alpha release that I shamelessly
> started base on bretts comments
>
> - properly mark up the model as it was for 1.0.3 release
> - add methods to continuum-data-management to utilise that and then
> make any necessary transformations (c-d-m will do the basic 1-to-1
> conversions)
> - probably write a little CLI to fire it off.
> - vet jira for a 1.1 alpha 1 release version and maybe schedule out a
> couple of alpha-# releases.
>
> I think I'll start in on the data management bit now since that seems
> like the biggest hurdle. I am not convinced we really need to worry
> about a continuum 1.0.3 -> continuum 1.1 migration ability...its not a
> difficult thing to get projects loaded back up into continuum...but
> we'll see I guess.
>
> anyone have anything to add?
>
> jesse
>
> --
> jesse mcconnell
> jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com
>