You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com> on 2007/08/21 20:24:44 UTC
Is there a procedure to be followed to put new code in geronimo\plugins
I was wondering if there is a procedure to be followed to put new code in
geronimo\plugins? I intend to move the geronimo-tuscany integration thing
Manu and myself are working on out of sandbox and put under
geronimo\plugins. Also, is there a release cycle for geronimo plugins?
Thanks and regards,
Vamsi
Re: Is there a procedure to be followed to put new code in geronimo\plugins
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
On Aug 21, 2007, at 12:00 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> On Aug 21, 2007, at 11:24 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
>
>> I was wondering if there is a procedure to be followed to put new
>> code in geronimo\plugins?
>
> i've been making it up as I go along. An actual suggested
> procedure or maven archetype would be much better. I think the
> minimum is having a
> <plugin project>
> - trunk
> - branches
> - tags
>
> svn structure. I just moved the roller plugin to this structure
> today.
>
> Both my plugin poms have
> <parent>
> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.genesis.config</groupId>
> <artifactId>project-config</artifactId>
> <version>1.2</version>
> </parent>
>
> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.plugins</groupId>
>
> I wonder if we should have a parent pom for all plugins
> specifically? So far I'm just not sure one way or another, so
> perhaps postponing that until we know what would go in it would be
> good.
Yup, that looks good. We should probably have a parent pom for
plugins... I'll look into that when I revisit our parents for other
projects... need to fix it up and make it simpler. For now just use
project-config.
> No plugins from "plugins" have ever been released. I'd like to see:
>
> - use the maven release plugin + staging plugin
> - use the maven-remote-resources-plugin
>
> as minimum requirements for releasing. I've yet to get the maven-
> release-plugin to tag into the correct directory so this might take
> a little work. remote-resources seems to just work :-)
Yup, this is the plan. The normal mvn release:* bits should work
well with smaller/less complicated projects, which I'm hoping these
plugins will be.
--jason
Re: Is there a procedure to be followed to put new code in geronimo\plugins
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
On Aug 21, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> On Aug 21, 2007, at 3:00 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>> No plugins from "plugins" have ever been released. I'd like to see:
>>
>> - use the maven release plugin + staging plugin
>> - use the maven-remote-resources-plugin
>>
>> as minimum requirements for releasing. I've yet to get the maven-
>> release-plugin to tag into the correct directory so this might
>> take a little work. remote-resources seems to just work :-)
>
> +1 to this. We need to get Geronimo proper using the maven release
> plugin.
We need to get it *automated*...
and I'd not really call the current maven-release-plugin proper
either :-P
--jason
Re: Is there a procedure to be followed to put new code in geronimo\plugins
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
On Aug 21, 2007, at 3:00 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
> No plugins from "plugins" have ever been released. I'd like to see:
>
> - use the maven release plugin + staging plugin
> - use the maven-remote-resources-plugin
>
> as minimum requirements for releasing. I've yet to get the maven-
> release-plugin to tag into the correct directory so this might take
> a little work. remote-resources seems to just work :-)
>
+1 to this. We need to get Geronimo proper using the maven release
plugin.
Re: Is there a procedure to be followed to put new code in geronimo\plugins
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Aug 21, 2007, at 11:24 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
> I was wondering if there is a procedure to be followed to put new
> code in geronimo\plugins?
i've been making it up as I go along. An actual suggested procedure
or maven archetype would be much better. I think the minimum is
having a
<plugin project>
- trunk
- branches
- tags
svn structure. I just moved the roller plugin to this structure today.
Both my plugin poms have
<parent>
<groupId>org.apache.geronimo.genesis.config</groupId>
<artifactId>project-config</artifactId>
<version>1.2</version>
</parent>
<groupId>org.apache.geronimo.plugins</groupId>
I wonder if we should have a parent pom for all plugins
specifically? So far I'm just not sure one way or another, so
perhaps postponing that until we know what would go in it would be good.
> I intend to move the geronimo-tuscany integration thing Manu and
> myself are working on out of sandbox and put under geronimo\plugins.
excellent!
> Also, is there a release cycle for geronimo plugins?
No plugins from "plugins" have ever been released. I'd like to see:
- use the maven release plugin + staging plugin
- use the maven-remote-resources-plugin
as minimum requirements for releasing. I've yet to get the maven-
release-plugin to tag into the correct directory so this might take a
little work. remote-resources seems to just work :-)
thanks
david jencks
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Vamsi
Re: Is there a procedure to be followed to put new code in geronimo\plugins
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Aug 22, 2007, at 3:45 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> I'm not sure if/when we've faced this in the past but I'd be
> comfortable with:
> - moving code to plugins
> - announcing it on the dev list
> - in 3-7 days pushing a snapshot if there are no major objections
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Aug 22, 2007, at 12:38 PM, Paul McMahan wrote:
>
>> Followup question:
>>
>> Once a plugin has been moved from /sandbox to /plugins, is it OK
>> to go ahead and deploy snapshots of the plugin to the ASF snapshot
>> repo? The specific reason I'm asking is because the extensible
>> console work that has been going on in GERONIMO-3345 and
>> GERONIMO-3413 is at the point where it would be great to get some
>> feedback and collaboration without having to build the plugins
>> from source. According to http://www.apache.org/dev/repository-
>> faq.html the PMC needs to be "happy" with the binaries before they
>> are "released" to the snapshot repo -- although "release" doesn't
>> seem like the right term for them to use for stuff in the snapshot
>> repo. So, is a heads-up on the dev list adequate for this type of
>> activity, or is something more formal required?
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Paul
>>
>> On Aug 21, 2007, at 2:24 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
>>
>>> I was wondering if there is a procedure to be followed to put new
>>> code in geronimo\plugins? I intend to move the geronimo-tuscany
>>> integration thing Manu and myself are working on out of sandbox
>>> and put under geronimo\plugins. Also, is there a release cycle
>>> for geronimo plugins?
>>>
>>> Thanks and regards,
>>> Vamsi
>>
>
Re: Is there a procedure to be followed to put new code in geronimo\plugins
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Aug 23, 2007, at 10:10 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
> One other question... Is it necessary that the plugin (if it tends
> to be different for Tomcat and Jetty or in another context, say
> Axis2 and CXF) should be made available for all distributions? I
> guess we are establishing the procedure now and so wanted to cover
> as many situations as possible.
It might depend what it is. However in general I think its best to
provide plugins for each set of prerequisites. For instance I
probably won't object if you don't provide a plugin for tomcat and
jeff probably won't object if you don't provide a plugin for jetty :-)
i.e. use your judgement on what is practical and good for the community.
thanks
david jencks
>
> Vamsi
>
> On 8/23/07, Kevan Miller < kevan.miller@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 22, 2007, at 3:45 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure if/when we've faced this in the past but I'd be
> > comfortable with:
> > - moving code to plugins
> > - announcing it on the dev list
> > - in 3-7 days pushing a snapshot if there are no major objections
>
> Sounds ok. I would expect that we'd have had some advanced warning
> before the code had been moved into plugins... With such advance
> notice, I'd say 3 day lazy consensus period is quite adequate.
> This is somewhat akin to adding a new module to Geronimo server and
> "deploying" the new jar file to a snapshot repository. Major
> difference is people tend to watch server development a bit more
> closely...
>
> --kevan
>
Re: Is there a procedure to be followed to put new code in geronimo\plugins
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>.
On 8/23/07, Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One other question... Is it necessary that the plugin (if it tends to be
> different for Tomcat and Jetty or in another context, say Axis2 and CXF)
> should be made available for all distributions? I guess we are establishing
> the procedure now and so wanted to cover as many situations as possible.
Do what your time permits. We won't likely cover all situations now so
no need to create imaginary situations that could never surface. The
iterative approach has showed many benefits in the past than do
everything at once.
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
Re: Is there a procedure to be followed to put new code in geronimo\plugins
Posted by Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>.
One other question... Is it necessary that the plugin (if it tends to be
different for Tomcat and Jetty or in another context, say Axis2 and CXF)
should be made available for all distributions? I guess we are establishing
the procedure now and so wanted to cover as many situations as possible.
Vamsi
On 8/23/07, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 22, 2007, at 3:45 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure if/when we've faced this in the past but I'd be
> > comfortable with:
> > - moving code to plugins
> > - announcing it on the dev list
> > - in 3-7 days pushing a snapshot if there are no major objections
>
> Sounds ok. I would expect that we'd have had some advanced warning
> before the code had been moved into plugins... With such advance
> notice, I'd say 3 day lazy consensus period is quite adequate.
> This is somewhat akin to adding a new module to Geronimo server and
> "deploying" the new jar file to a snapshot repository. Major
> difference is people tend to watch server development a bit more
> closely...
>
> --kevan
>
Re: Is there a procedure to be followed to put new code in geronimo\plugins
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Aug 22, 2007, at 3:45 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> I'm not sure if/when we've faced this in the past but I'd be
> comfortable with:
> - moving code to plugins
> - announcing it on the dev list
> - in 3-7 days pushing a snapshot if there are no major objections
Sounds ok. I would expect that we'd have had some advanced warning
before the code had been moved into plugins... With such advance
notice, I'd say 3 day lazy consensus period is quite adequate.
This is somewhat akin to adding a new module to Geronimo server and
"deploying" the new jar file to a snapshot repository. Major
difference is people tend to watch server development a bit more
closely...
--kevan
Re: Is there a procedure to be followed to put new code in geronimo\plugins
Posted by "Jay D. McHugh" <ja...@joyfulnoisewebdesign.com>.
+1
David Jencks wrote:
> I'm not sure if/when we've faced this in the past but I'd be
> comfortable with:
> - moving code to plugins
> - announcing it on the dev list
> - in 3-7 days pushing a snapshot if there are no major objections
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Aug 22, 2007, at 12:38 PM, Paul McMahan wrote:
>
>> Followup question:
>>
>> Once a plugin has been moved from /sandbox to /plugins, is it OK to
>> go ahead and deploy snapshots of the plugin to the ASF snapshot
>> repo? The specific reason I'm asking is because the extensible
>> console work that has been going on in GERONIMO-3345 and
>> GERONIMO-3413 is at the point where it would be great to get some
>> feedback and collaboration without having to build the plugins from
>> source. According to http://www.apache.org/dev/repository-faq.html
>> the PMC needs to be "happy" with the binaries before they are
>> "released" to the snapshot repo -- although "release" doesn't seem
>> like the right term for them to use for stuff in the snapshot repo.
>> So, is a heads-up on the dev list adequate for this type of activity,
>> or is something more formal required?
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Paul
>>
>> On Aug 21, 2007, at 2:24 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
>>
>>> I was wondering if there is a procedure to be followed to put new
>>> code in geronimo\plugins? I intend to move the geronimo-tuscany
>>> integration thing Manu and myself are working on out of sandbox and
>>> put under geronimo\plugins. Also, is there a release cycle for
>>> geronimo plugins?
>>>
>>> Thanks and regards,
>>> Vamsi
>>
>
>
>
> .
>
Re: Is there a procedure to be followed to put new code in geronimo\plugins
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
I'm not sure if/when we've faced this in the past but I'd be
comfortable with:
- moving code to plugins
- announcing it on the dev list
- in 3-7 days pushing a snapshot if there are no major objections
thanks
david jencks
On Aug 22, 2007, at 12:38 PM, Paul McMahan wrote:
> Followup question:
>
> Once a plugin has been moved from /sandbox to /plugins, is it OK to
> go ahead and deploy snapshots of the plugin to the ASF snapshot
> repo? The specific reason I'm asking is because the extensible
> console work that has been going on in GERONIMO-3345 and
> GERONIMO-3413 is at the point where it would be great to get some
> feedback and collaboration without having to build the plugins from
> source. According to http://www.apache.org/dev/repository-
> faq.html the PMC needs to be "happy" with the binaries before they
> are "released" to the snapshot repo -- although "release" doesn't
> seem like the right term for them to use for stuff in the snapshot
> repo. So, is a heads-up on the dev list adequate for this type of
> activity, or is something more formal required?
>
> Best wishes,
> Paul
>
> On Aug 21, 2007, at 2:24 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
>
>> I was wondering if there is a procedure to be followed to put new
>> code in geronimo\plugins? I intend to move the geronimo-tuscany
>> integration thing Manu and myself are working on out of sandbox
>> and put under geronimo\plugins. Also, is there a release cycle
>> for geronimo plugins?
>>
>> Thanks and regards,
>> Vamsi
>
Re: Is there a procedure to be followed to put new code in geronimo\plugins
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
Followup question:
Once a plugin has been moved from /sandbox to /plugins, is it OK to
go ahead and deploy snapshots of the plugin to the ASF snapshot
repo? The specific reason I'm asking is because the extensible
console work that has been going on in GERONIMO-3345 and
GERONIMO-3413 is at the point where it would be great to get some
feedback and collaboration without having to build the plugins from
source. According to http://www.apache.org/dev/repository-faq.html
the PMC needs to be "happy" with the binaries before they are
"released" to the snapshot repo -- although "release" doesn't seem
like the right term for them to use for stuff in the snapshot repo.
So, is a heads-up on the dev list adequate for this type of activity,
or is something more formal required?
Best wishes,
Paul
On Aug 21, 2007, at 2:24 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
> I was wondering if there is a procedure to be followed to put new
> code in geronimo\plugins? I intend to move the geronimo-tuscany
> integration thing Manu and myself are working on out of sandbox and
> put under geronimo\plugins. Also, is there a release cycle for
> geronimo plugins?
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Vamsi