You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@aries.apache.org by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> on 2010/03/02 03:28:00 UTC
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aries release
I've done most of what I think is needed for aries to be basically
releasable. There are some bits left and possibly stuff I've missed.
1. legal file review. There are a bunch of NOTICE files that claim
that work from osgi is included. Really? license and notice files
are supposed to apply to what is actually in an artifact or checkout.
Are some of our source files copied from an osgi source? Also all the
legal files that end up in binary artifacts need to be checked. Also
we need to run the rat plugin: this should be configured in the
default pom. Not sure if I will get to this.
2. actually using the eba-maven-plugn. I'm not entirely sure how to
make sure that an eba is working so I didn't mess with this. I think
the plugin itself is working well enough to use though.
2. ordering dependencies and dependency management. I find it
convenient to have these alphabetized so I can find what I'm looking
for, but I haven't done this in most poms. I'm not sure why there
isn't a usable tool for doing this but I haven't found one. Dull but
useful...
3. It would probably be a really good idea to run mvn
dependency:analyze and look carefully at the results. The results
from this can require interpretation so its best if someone who is
very familiar with how the code works does this.
4. before a release all snapshots need to be resolved to released
versions. I don't know if there are any snapshots.
To summarize what I've tried to do:
1. default-parent has dependency management for the basic osgi
dependencies that all projects are pretty sure to use including the
pax stuff used mostly for testing.
2. each subproject has legal files in its checkout root
3. each subproject has an scm element in its pom, but no others do.
4. each subproject has dependency management for everything included
in it. In addition, it has its subprojects listed in dependency
management. (this is bent slightly for the samples). This means that
(a) modules in a subproject don't need to include versions for use
of other modules
(b) you can get dependency management for all the modules in a
subproject by depending on the subproject pom with scope import. (see
the samples pom for an example).
5. As a result of (4), modules don't have any versions in any
dependency elements.
Release is going to involve...
releasing the parent
updating the parent version wherever it is used (all subproject parents)
releasing the subprojects in an appropriate order and updating their
versions wherever they are used.
It might be worthwhile changing the pom version to 0.1-incubating-
SNAPSHOT (or something similar, 0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT?) before doing
this because then the versions plugin can be used to update use of a
subproject to the newly released version of what it uses. Going from
1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT to 0.1-incubating won't allow this.
As noted in the "root" pom, don't try to release the root pom and
don't try release everything at once from the root pom.
thanks
david jencks
On Feb 24, 2010, at 11:55 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> I started looking into cleaning up the build, and of course it is
> taking longer than I expected.
>
> I'm seriously hampered by failing tests in a fresh checkout.
>
> There are some projects in application that stop compiling if you
> alphabetize the dependencies. It looks like osgi 3 artifacts are
> getting on the maven classpath before osgi 4.2 artifacts. Adding
> exclusions to the dependencies seems to fix it if you can figure out
> where the out of date jars are coming from.
>
> The build is already much closer to a multi-release model than a
> single release model.
>
> I've diffed what I have so far and attached it to ARIES-173. It
> includes scm info and a lot of version corrections. Due to the
> failing tests I'm not too comfortable committing it.
>
> Is anyone else seeing test failures locally?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Feb 24, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Lin Sun wrote:
>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> It 'd be great if you are willing to fix these build issues, since
>> you
>> just went through a big release in Geronimo. :)
>>
>> I know the maven release plugin isn't friendly to use some cases, so
>> it is best we get these resolved to make our release process a bit
>> easier.
>>
>> EBA plugin would be a very nice add-on, if it comes in time with
>> the release.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Lin
>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, David Jencks
>> <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would like to understand the problems you see better, but I do
>>>> not have
>>>> the maven background you guys have, any chance you could explain
>>>> what the
>>>> problems are, why they are problems and the solution at some point?
>>>
>>> The biggest immediate problem is that without correct svn info you
>>> can't do
>>> a release with the release plugin. I'm pretty sure the way its
>>> set up now,
>>> when you try, the tag will be under maven's apache pom, not
>>> aries. (you'll
>>> fail unless you happen to be a maven committer too). You
>>> definitely don't
>>> want to try to do a release without the release plugin.
>>>
>>> Organizationally there's no way that for instance blueprint,
>>> application,
>>> and samples should always be released in synchrony. Any time two
>>> of them
>>> happen to be ready for release at the same time it will be purely
>>> accidental. Right now everyone wants to get a milestone out the
>>> door, but
>>> looking at the different projects their state of completion is
>>> pretty much
>>> wildly different. A decision to release all of them at once is
>>> not based in
>>> any way on them being equally complete. I'm suggesting that since
>>> build
>>> fixes are needed anyway, why not set up a maintainable structure
>>> that will
>>> continue to work beyond this publicity release. The benefit to
>>> users is
>>> that aries will be able to release bits in a timely fashion;
>>> otherwise the
>>> entire project will never be in a releasable state at once. (I'm
>>> only
>>> exaggerating a little bit :-)
>>>
>>> What got me looking at this at all is what look like wild
>>> gyrations that
>>> don't really use maven properly to get an .eba (or some artifact)
>>> out the
>>> door. This might be ok for one release but (a) I think this can
>>> be done
>>> directly with the assembly plugin short term and (b) an eba-maven-
>>> plugin
>>> seems like the obvious more long term solution.
>>>
>>> I'm willing to fix the build and probably work on an eba plugin,
>>> but want to
>>> be sure this is ok with everyone first.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Alasdair
>>>>
>>>> On 23 Feb 2010, at 18:18, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This discussion got me worried enough to take a look at the
>>>>> aries build.
>>>>> Now I'm even more worried.
>>>>>
>>>>> While it might feel good to try to push out a release as fast as
>>>>> possible
>>>>> I'd prefer to see a sustainable build system in place first. So
>>>>> far it
>>>>> looks to me as if aries is going to be a bunch of loosely coupled
>>>>> subprojects. Building them all at once is not going to work for
>>>>> long. I
>>>>> think we should recognize that and put that in the build system
>>>>> now. To me
>>>>> this means:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. a parent pom that isn't at the root of the svn trunk.
>>>>> 2. each subproject has pom info sufficient so it can be released
>>>>> (mostly
>>>>> svn info) (right now this is completely missing everywhere as
>>>>> far as I can
>>>>> see, which will result in ares getting tagged into svn as part
>>>>> of the apache
>>>>> pom)
>>>>>
>>>>> We can still have a "fake" pom that builds everything, but it
>>>>> won't be
>>>>> part of any release procedure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Having separately released subprojects does not prevent having a
>>>>> single
>>>>> vote on all the releases.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd suggest a few other pom tweaks such as using resources and
>>>>> filtered-resources to distinguish when filtering is called for.
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition relevant to this particular bit of the thread, we
>>>>> need an
>>>>> eba-maven-plugin to assemble ebas. Getting this into a first
>>>>> release would
>>>>> be a great idea IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>> If there's general agreement I can spend some time playing with
>>>>> the build
>>>>> and possibly working on the eba plugin.
>>>>>
>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 22, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 19 February 2010 13:09, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd also like to see us release the sample applications but I
>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>> at least one complication. Both Blog Sample and AriesTrader
>>>>>>>> generate
>>>>>>>> EBAs
>>>>>>>> using different techniques - but both leverage the maven-
>>>>>>>> antrun-plugin
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> finally produce a file of type "eba".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I realised the .eba file generated in the blog-assembly module
>>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>>> being pushed into my local repo. I've made some changes to the
>>>>>>> pom.xml
>>>>>>> in ARIES-198 to fix this. So now it uses antrun to create
>>>>>>> the .eba
>>>>>>> artifact and the build-helper-maven-plugin to push the
>>>>>>> artifact to the
>>>>>>> local repo. I needed to add NOTICE and LICENSE files to
>>>>>>> the .eba for
>>>>>>> the ianal plugin in the verify phase to succeed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've not used the build-helper-maven-plugin before. Do you
>>>>>> know if it
>>>>>> will work with the maven-release-plugin to push the eba
>>>>>> artifacts when we do
>>>>>> a release? If so, then I should look at using the same
>>>>>> mechanism for
>>>>>> AriesTrader.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think the result is that the eba will not be available in a
>>>>>>>> maven
>>>>>>>> repository.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One of the differences is that AriesTrader first generates a
>>>>>>>> jar using
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> maven-assembly-plugin and then copies this to an eba. The
>>>>>>>> jar will be
>>>>>>>> managed by maven and IIUC it should be deployable as an
>>>>>>>> "application"
>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>> with an extension of "jar" rather than "eba". If that is
>>>>>>>> correct then
>>>>>>>> perhaps delivery of an application jar is an acceptable
>>>>>>>> approach for
>>>>>>>> the 1st
>>>>>>>> release. Unfortunately I haven't actually setup my equinox
>>>>>>>> assembly
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> deploy the eba yet - it still deploys all of the individual
>>>>>>>> bundles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Using the maven-assembly-plugin likely the preferred approach
>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>> term. Perhaps we could copy the artifact to .eba and use the
>>>>>>> build-helper-maven-plugin to remove the .jar artifact from maven
>>>>>>> control and add the .eba one?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can give this a try for AriesTrader. If it doesn't work out
>>>>>> - is
>>>>>> there anything wrong with the approach I mentioned earlier of
>>>>>> just using the
>>>>>> jar artifacts rather than the eba artifacts? Will the current
>>>>>> application
>>>>>> support only look at *.eba archives?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd like to see at least those included:
>>>>>>>>> * blueprint
>>>>>>>>> * jmx
>>>>>>>>> * jndi
>>>>>>>>> * transaction
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't think applications are really usable yet and I
>>>>>>>>> haven't really
>>>>>>>>> looked at JPA yet, so can't tell about it.
>>>>>>>>> The transaction component is functional and we've been using
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> mostly
>>>>>>>>> unchanged since a long time in ServiceMix.
>>>>>>>>> Do you have any particular concerns with it ? (I'm not
>>>>>>>>> talking about
>>>>>>>>> declarative transactions for blueprint, note).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 04:19, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the response (even while on vacation!) ... and for
>>>>>>>>>> volunteering
>>>>>>>>>> to be the release manager. Your response helps me get a
>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>> picture
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> the plans.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I was really just interested in the general objectives and
>>>>>>>>>> timing
>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> hadn't been discussed yet. To get the release out in Feb
>>>>>>>>>> means it
>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> delivered next week. I'm afraid the hill might be a little
>>>>>>>>>> too
>>>>>>>>>> steep to
>>>>>>>>>> climb that quickly but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The more communication the better. It's important to get
>>>>>>>>>> everybody
>>>>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>>>> and planning along the same lines (or understand quickly if
>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>> are any
>>>>>>>>>> differences of opinion). Knowing that you are thinking of
>>>>>>>>>> creating
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> release candidate next week means that we should be getting
>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>> restrictive
>>>>>>>>>> on new content to avoid any unpleasant surprises.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any strong opinions on what should be in or
>>>>>>>>>> out - but
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> general it doesn't make sense to release things that aren't
>>>>>>>>>> functional.
>>>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>>> the moment I'm not sure what those are - but I suspect not
>>>>>>>>>> all of
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> components are fully functional yet (for example
>>>>>>>>>> transaction).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joe, sorry I started setting myself up tuesday but am
>>>>>>>>>>> now out on
>>>>>>>>>>> vacation until monday.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I think the 0.1 release should serve to get
>>>>>>>>>>> what we
>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> right now in the respectable form the ASF requires. So
>>>>>>>>>>> 'must haves'
>>>>>>>>>>> are to get the build in the right shape to create the
>>>>>>>>>>> distribution
>>>>>>>>>>> files that are acceptable to the IPMC. I think each main
>>>>>>>>>>> area of
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> code deserves at least a README to describe what's
>>>>>>>>>>> possible. Since
>>>>>>>>>>> this is the first release there are likely a few unknowns
>>>>>>>>>>> - w.r.t
>>>>>>>>>>> timing I hope/expect to get the release out this in feb.
>>>>>>>>>>> If there
>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>> particular JIRAs or other issues you feel should be
>>>>>>>>>>> included please
>>>>>>>>>>> say. I'd like to rename the current JIRA version 1.0 to
>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1 and
>>>>>>>>>>> target
>>>>>>>>>>> issues for 0.1 appropriately and issues not for 0.1 to
>>>>>>>>>>> target a new
>>>>>>>>>>> 0.2 version. WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 February 2010 15:39, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What are your current thoughts and goals regarding the
>>>>>>>>>>>> release and
>>>>>>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>>>>>>> target dates?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it would be good if you could summarize your
>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts in
>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>> email
>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps on a page in the wiki that we can keep updated as
>>>>>>>>>>>> we make
>>>>>>>>>>>> progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of particular interest would be the content that we would
>>>>>>>>>>>> like to
>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> the first release (clarifying what we consider "must
>>>>>>>>>>>> have" from
>>>>>>>>>>>> "nice
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> have"), the current status of that content, target dates
>>>>>>>>>>>> for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> release,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and the process that we plan to use to generate the
>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12 February 2010 09:39, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great, thanks a lot. Let us know if you need any help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess if you take some notes, it would be interesting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the wiki.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Certainly will. It's been a while since I did one and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the process
>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed quite a bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:32, Jeremy Hughes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <hu...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Kevan, thanks. I volunteer to be release manager.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 February 2010 16:38, Kevan Miller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ke...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like the consensus is for a release with all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version number. Best to start with a simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versioning scheme,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I don't view a 0.1 blueprint release as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Showing the ability to generate an Apache release is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the community. Would definitely like to see this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We'll need a release manager. Any volunteers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --kevan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aries release
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>.
Cool.
Just FYI, when this topic was originally raised it was in the context of
the APPLICATION.MF where we were attempting to substitute the version in
a hard-coded APPLICATION.MF when generating the EBA. Since that time
the eba-maven-plugin was introduced which will automatically generate
the complete APPLICATION.MF. This is what we are now using in the samples.
Joe
Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> FWIW, I've added to the latest maven bundle plugin a goal that can be used
> to transform a string into a correct osgi version.
> The goal is now run automatically in the aries build and you can use the
> aries.osgi.version.clean property to obtain the correct syntax corresponding
> to the maven version.
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 18:48, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I thought I replied to this yesterday but see that I didn't.
>>
>>
>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>
>>> On 2 March 2010 19:30, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks David.
>>>>
>>>> After I sent my last note I recalled another place in AriesTrader with
>>>> hard-coded versions. The APPLICATION.MF files used for the two EBAs
>>>> that
>>>> are generated includes the bundle version - which is a little different
>>>> than
>>>> the maven version. Where the maven version is currently
>>>> 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT the bundle version generated using the
>>>> maven-bundle-plugin is 1.0.0.incubating-SNAPSHOT to conform to the OSGi
>>>> version scheme.
>>>>
>>> Are you saying we couldn't quite generate the APPLICATION.MF using
>>> resource filtering because the ${version} will be
>>> 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT instead of 1.0.0.incubating-SNAPSHOT?
>>>
>> Not necessarily. It's just that we'll need to keep the different format in
>> mind.
>>
>>
>>
>>> There are two things which might make this a moot point:
>>>> 1) If the eba-maven-plugin is enhanced to generate the APPLICATION.MF
>>>> then
>>>> we can use that to resolve the issue.
>>>>
>>> Yes I agree eba-maven-plugin should pull the same trick as the
>>> maven-bundle-plugin to ensure version numbers fit with the OSGi spec
>>> (whatever the logic for that conversion is).
>>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>
>>
>>> 2) Even though this is an issue with SNAPSHOTs I imagine it isn't an
>>>> issue
>>>> with a non-snapshot release because it won't container the "-XXX"
>>>> qualification.
>>>>
>>> I think it'll continue to be an issue while we are using the -incubating
>>> suffix.
>>>
>> Agreed. I wasn't sure if we were releasing 0.1 or 0.1-incubating.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Optionally, I could also just omit the APPLICATION.MF altogether from the
>>>> AriesTrader EBAs since I understand that it is not required. That might
>>>> be
>>>> quickest fix for now.
>>>>
>>> Do all the AriesTrader .eba files contain, by value, all the bundles
>>> they need? And, is that set transitively closed? If so then you
>>> certainly could remove the APPLICATION.MF. Or is it using the OBR
>>> resolver integration code to pull in bundles from a repository?
>>>
>> At the moment the eba includes the complete set of bundles by value.
>> However, I'm not sure if that will always be the case (or even if it will be
>> the case in all environments for some of the dependencies, such as slf4j).
>> I'll experiment a bit.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Joe
>>>> David Jencks wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 10:33 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that we should make a global change to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>>>> first. Why wouldn't we just do that now?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I started doing some experiments here...
>>>>>
>>>>> running
>>>>> mvn versions:set -DnewVersion=0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>>>
>>>>> in root and parent upgrades everything maven knows about just fine.
>>>>> However there's (1) mentioned below and also a hardcoded version in two
>>>>> blueprint-itests.
>>>>>
>>>>> According to
>>>>>
>>>>> http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxexam/Configuration+using+Maven+Plugin
>>>>>
>>>>> we should be able to replace the hardcoded versions with
>>>>> .versionAsInProject()
>>>>>
>>>>> if we run the maven-paxexam-plugin on the project. However I can't get
>>>>> it
>>>>> to work yet.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just a heads-up on some other issues related to versions in samples.
>>>>>> There are two potential problems that I am aware of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) For both Blog-Sample and AriesTrader there are hard-coded version
>>>>>> references in the Equinox assembly config.ini file which are used to
>>>>>> specify
>>>>>> the bundle jars that are to be started for the assembly. Naturally, the
>>>>>> versions of the aries bundles in this file won't be updated by the
>>>>>> maven-release-plugin. I'm not sure of a good solution for this beyond
>>>>>> just
>>>>>> manually changing the config.ini files prior to creating a release
>>>>>> candidate.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think we might be able to work around this by putting the config.ini
>>>>> files in src/main/resources/filtered-resources and defining a bunch of
>>>>> properties in an appropriate pom and using them for the version imports
>>>>> of
>>>>> the aries subproject dependencyManagement imports in the samples root
>>>>> pom.
>>>>> I haven't tried this yet...
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) I think there is still an unresolved issue related to Blog-Sample
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> how we might be able to demonstrate a bundle upgrade scenario. I'm
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> sure if this capability is included yet in Blog-Sample - so it might
>>>>>> still
>>>>>> be a non-issue at the moment. However, we had some discussion on this
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> week ago or so related to how we might be able to include multiple
>>>>>> versions
>>>>>> of components in the sample so that an upgrade scenario could be
>>>>>> demonstrated. If that is still a goal for the 0.1 release we will need
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> come up with some solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>> no ideas from me on this one :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think everything is ok.... I think (at least with dryRun=true) that
>>>>>>> the release plugin builds the project first as-is and checks that
>>>>>>> signing
>>>>>>> etc works.
>>>>>>> I added autoVersionSubmodules=true in the root parent pom which will
>>>>>>> make things work more smoothly :-)
>>>>>>> I really recommend changing the version to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>>>>> first, I'm happy to do this if you want.
>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> scratch that. I'm working thru this:
>>>>>>>> http://maven.apache.org/developers/release/apache-release.html as
>>>>>>>> there's several steps I haven't done.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2 March 2010 16:17, Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2 March 2010 02:28, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've done most of what I think is needed for aries to be basically
>>>>>>>>>> releasable. There are some bits left and possibly stuff I've
>>>>>>>>>> missed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. legal file review. There are a bunch of NOTICE files that claim
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> work from osgi is included. Really? license and notice files are
>>>>>>>>>> supposed
>>>>>>>>>> to apply to what is actually in an artifact or checkout. Are some
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>> source files copied from an osgi source? Also all the legal files
>>>>>>>>>> that end
>>>>>>>>>> up in binary artifacts need to be checked. Also we need to run the
>>>>>>>>>> rat
>>>>>>>>>> plugin: this should be configured in the default pom. Not sure if
>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>> get to this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. actually using the eba-maven-plugn. I'm not entirely sure how
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>> sure that an eba is working so I didn't mess with this. I think
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> plugin
>>>>>>>>>> itself is working well enough to use though.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. ordering dependencies and dependency management. I find it
>>>>>>>>>> convenient to
>>>>>>>>>> have these alphabetized so I can find what I'm looking for, but I
>>>>>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>>>>>> done this in most poms. I'm not sure why there isn't a usable tool
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> doing this but I haven't found one. Dull but useful...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3. It would probably be a really good idea to run mvn
>>>>>>>>>> dependency:analyze and
>>>>>>>>>> look carefully at the results. The results from this can require
>>>>>>>>>> interpretation so its best if someone who is very familiar with how
>>>>>>>>>> the code
>>>>>>>>>> works does this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 4. before a release all snapshots need to be resolved to released
>>>>>>>>>> versions.
>>>>>>>>>> I don't know if there are any snapshots.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To summarize what I've tried to do:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. default-parent has dependency management for the basic osgi
>>>>>>>>>> dependencies
>>>>>>>>>> that all projects are pretty sure to use including the pax stuff
>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>> mostly
>>>>>>>>>> for testing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. each subproject has legal files in its checkout root
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3. each subproject has an scm element in its pom, but no others do.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 4. each subproject has dependency management for everything
>>>>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>>>> in it.
>>>>>>>>>> In addition, it has its subprojects listed in dependency
>>>>>>>>>> management.
>>>>>>>>>> (this
>>>>>>>>>> is bent slightly for the samples). This means that
>>>>>>>>>> (a) modules in a subproject don't need to include versions for use
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>> modules
>>>>>>>>>> (b) you can get dependency management for all the modules in a
>>>>>>>>>> subproject
>>>>>>>>>> by depending on the subproject pom with scope import. (see the
>>>>>>>>>> samples pom
>>>>>>>>>> for an example).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 5. As a result of (4), modules don't have any versions in any
>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>> elements.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Release is going to involve...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> releasing the parent
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In trunk/parent I tried:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> mvn -DdryRun=true release:prepare -Papache-release
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Providing 0.1-incubating for the release version
>>>>>>>>> Defaulting to parent-0.1-incubating for the SCM release tag
>>>>>>>>> Defaulting to 0.2-incubating-SNAPSHOT for the new development
>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> then when it builds the 'Top Parent POM' it outputs this:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building Aries :: Top Parent POM
>>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] task-segment: [clean, verify]
>>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [clean:clean]
>>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: classpath.resource.loader.class =>
>>>>>>>>> 'org.codehaus.plexus.velocity.ContextClassLoaderResourceLoader'.
>>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: velocimacro.messages.on => 'false'.
>>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.loader => 'classpath'.
>>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.manager.logwhenfound =>
>>>>>>>>> 'false'.
>>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [remote-resources:process {execution: default}]
>>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [site:attach-descriptor]
>>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [assembly:single {execution: source-release-assembly}]
>>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added,
>>>>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already
>>>>>>>>> added,
>>>>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already added,
>>>>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building zip:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> C:\cygwin\home\hughesj\oss\aries\trunk\parent\target\parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-source-release.zip
>>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added,
>>>>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already
>>>>>>>>> added,
>>>>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already added,
>>>>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Preparing source:jar
>>>>>>>>> [INFO] [WARNING] Removing: jar from forked lifecycle, to prevent
>>>>>>>>> recursive invocation.
>>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] No goals needed for project - skipping
>>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [source:jar {execution: attach-sources}]
>>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [javadoc:jar {execution: attach-javadocs}]
>>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Not executing Javadoc as the project is not a Java
>>>>>>>>> classpath-capable package
>>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [gpg:sign {execution: default}]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> so it seems to be outputting 1.0.0 artifacts still. Any ideas?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then stops at the gpg stage. I thought it would prompt me for my key
>>>>>>>>> passphrase at this point. Do I need gpg-agent to be running?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> updating the parent version wherever it is used (all subproject
>>>>>>>>>> parents)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> releasing the subprojects in an appropriate order and updating
>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>> versions wherever they are used.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It might be worthwhile changing the pom version to
>>>>>>>>>> 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>>>>>>>> (or something similar, 0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT?) before doing this
>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>> then the versions plugin can be used to update use of a subproject
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> newly released version of what it uses. Going from
>>>>>>>>>> 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT to 0.1-incubating won't allow this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As noted in the "root" pom, don't try to release the root pom and
>>>>>>>>>> don't try
>>>>>>>>>> release everything at once from the root pom.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 11:55 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I started looking into cleaning up the build, and of course it is
>>>>>>>>>>> taking
>>>>>>>>>>> longer than I expected.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm seriously hampered by failing tests in a fresh checkout.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There are some projects in application that stop compiling if you
>>>>>>>>>>> alphabetize the dependencies. It looks like osgi 3 artifacts are
>>>>>>>>>>> getting on
>>>>>>>>>>> the maven classpath before osgi 4.2 artifacts. Adding exclusions
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies seems to fix it if you can figure out where the out
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> date
>>>>>>>>>>> jars are coming from.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The build is already much closer to a multi-release model than a
>>>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>> release model.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I've diffed what I have so far and attached it to ARIES-173. It
>>>>>>>>>>> includes
>>>>>>>>>>> scm info and a lot of version corrections. Due to the failing
>>>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not
>>>>>>>>>>> too comfortable committing it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is anyone else seeing test failures locally?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Lin Sun wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>>>>>> It 'd be great if you are willing to fix these build issues,
>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>> just went through a big release in Geronimo. :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I know the maven release plugin isn't friendly to use some cases,
>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>> it is best we get these resolved to make our release process a
>>>>>>>>>>>> bit
>>>>>>>>>>>> easier.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> EBA plugin would be a very nice add-on, if it comes in time with
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Lin
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, David Jencks
>>>>>>>>>>>> <da...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to understand the problems you see better, but I do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the maven background you guys have, any chance you could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems are, why they are problems and the solution at some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The biggest immediate problem is that without correct svn info
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a release with the release plugin. I'm pretty sure the way its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> set up
>>>>>>>>>>>>> now,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you try, the tag will be under maven's apache pom, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aries.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (you'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail unless you happen to be a maven committer too). You
>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to try to do a release without the release plugin.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Organizationally there's no way that for instance blueprint,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> application,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and samples should always be released in synchrony. Any time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen to be ready for release at the same time it will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> purely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> accidental. Right now everyone wants to get a milestone out the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> door,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking at the different projects their state of completion is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wildly different. A decision to release all of them at once is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> based in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> any way on them being equally complete. I'm suggesting that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes are needed anyway, why not set up a maintainable structure
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue to work beyond this publicity release. The benefit to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> users is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that aries will be able to release bits in a timely fashion;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire project will never be in a releasable state at once. (I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>> exaggerating a little bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What got me looking at this at all is what look like wild
>>>>>>>>>>>>> gyrations that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't really use maven properly to get an .eba (or some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> door. This might be ok for one release but (a) I think this can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be done
>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly with the assembly plugin short term and (b) an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin
>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems like the obvious more long term solution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to fix the build and probably work on an eba plugin,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be sure this is ok with everyone first.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alasdair
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23 Feb 2010, at 18:18, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This discussion got me worried enough to take a look at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aries
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I'm even more worried.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While it might feel good to try to push out a release as fast
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd prefer to see a sustainable build system in place first.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> far
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks to me as if aries is going to be a bunch of loosely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coupled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subprojects. Building them all at once is not going to work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we should recognize that and put that in the build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this means:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. a parent pom that isn't at the root of the svn trunk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. each subproject has pom info sufficient so it can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> released
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> svn info) (right now this is completely missing everywhere as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> far as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see, which will result in ares getting tagged into svn as part
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apache
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pom)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can still have a "fake" pom that builds everything, but it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of any release procedure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having separately released subprojects does not prevent having
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vote on all the releases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd suggest a few other pom tweaks such as using resources and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> filtered-resources to distinguish when filtering is called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In addition relevant to this particular bit of the thread, we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin to assemble ebas. Getting this into a first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a great idea IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there's general agreement I can spend some time playing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and possibly working on the eba plugin.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 February 2010 13:09, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to see us release the sample applications but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least one complication. Both Blog Sample and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AriesTrader
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EBAs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using different techniques - but both leverage the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-antrun-plugin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally produce a file of type "eba".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I realised the .eba file generated in the blog-assembly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> module
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being pushed into my local repo. I've made some changes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pom.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in ARIES-198 to fix this. So now it uses antrun to create
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .eba
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact and the build-helper-maven-plugin to push the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local repo. I needed to add NOTICE and LICENSE files to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .eba for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ianal plugin in the verify phase to succeed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've not used the build-helper-maven-plugin before. Do you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will work with the maven-release-plugin to push the eba
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifacts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when we do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a release? If so, then I should look at using the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AriesTrader.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the result is that the eba will not be available in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repository.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the differences is that AriesTrader first generates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-assembly-plugin and then copies this to an eba. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jar will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> managed by maven and IIUC it should be deployable as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "application"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an extension of "jar" rather than "eba". If that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps delivery of an application jar is an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1st
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. Unfortunately I haven't actually setup my equinox
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assembly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deploy the eba yet - it still deploys all of the individual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bundles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using the maven-assembly-plugin likely the preferred
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term. Perhaps we could copy the artifact to .eba and use the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build-helper-maven-plugin to remove the .jar artifact from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control and add the .eba one?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can give this a try for AriesTrader. If it doesn't work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there anything wrong with the approach I mentioned earlier of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jar artifacts rather than the eba artifacts? Will the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support only look at *.eba archives?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to see at least those included:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * blueprint
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jmx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jndi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * transaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think applications are really usable yet and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looked at JPA yet, so can't tell about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The transaction component is functional and we've been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unchanged since a long time in ServiceMix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any particular concerns with it ? (I'm not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declarative transactions for blueprint, note).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 04:19, Joe Bohn <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> joebohn@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the response (even while on vacation!) ... and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be the release manager. Your response helps me get a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> picture
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the plans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was really just interested in the general objectives
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hadn't been discussed yet. To get the release out in Feb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> delivered next week. I'm afraid the hill might be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steep to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climb that quickly but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The more communication the better. It's important to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and planning along the same lines (or understand quickly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences of opinion). Knowing that you are thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release candidate next week means that we should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restrictive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on new content to avoid any unpleasant surprises.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any strong opinions on what should be in or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general it doesn't make sense to release things that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functional.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment I'm not sure what those are - but I suspect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components are fully functional yet (for example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joe, sorry I started setting myself up tuesday but am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacation until monday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I think the 0.1 release should serve to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right now in the respectable form the ASF requires. So
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haves'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are to get the build in the right shape to create the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files that are acceptable to the IPMC. I think each main
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> area of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code deserves at least a README to describe what's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is the first release there are likely a few
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unknowns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> w.r.t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timing I hope/expect to get the release out this in feb.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular JIRAs or other issues you feel should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. I'd like to rename the current JIRA version 1.0 to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues for 0.1 appropriately and issues not for 0.1 to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.2 version. WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 February 2010 15:39, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are your current thoughts and goals regarding the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target dates?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it would be good if you could summarize your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps on a page in the wiki that we can keep updated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of particular interest would be the content that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first release (clarifying what we consider "must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have" from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have"), the current status of that content, target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the process that we plan to use to generate the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12 February 2010 09:39, Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <gn...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great, thanks a lot. Let us know if you need any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess if you take some notes, it would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the wiki.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Certainly will. It's been a while since I did one and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed quite a bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:32, Jeremy Hughes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <hu...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Kevan, thanks. I volunteer to be release manager.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 February 2010 16:38, Kevan Miller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ke...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like the consensus is for a release with all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version number. Best to start with a simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versioning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I don't view a 0.1 blueprint release as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Showing the ability to generate an Apache release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the community. Would definitely like to see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We'll need a release manager. Any volunteers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --kevan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>>
>> --
>> Joe
>>
>
>
>
--
Joe
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aries release
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
FWIW, I've added to the latest maven bundle plugin a goal that can be used
to transform a string into a correct osgi version.
The goal is now run automatically in the aries build and you can use the
aries.osgi.version.clean property to obtain the correct syntax corresponding
to the maven version.
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 18:48, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, I thought I replied to this yesterday but see that I didn't.
>
>
> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>
>> On 2 March 2010 19:30, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks David.
>>>
>>> After I sent my last note I recalled another place in AriesTrader with
>>> hard-coded versions. The APPLICATION.MF files used for the two EBAs
>>> that
>>> are generated includes the bundle version - which is a little different
>>> than
>>> the maven version. Where the maven version is currently
>>> 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT the bundle version generated using the
>>> maven-bundle-plugin is 1.0.0.incubating-SNAPSHOT to conform to the OSGi
>>> version scheme.
>>>
>>
>> Are you saying we couldn't quite generate the APPLICATION.MF using
>> resource filtering because the ${version} will be
>> 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT instead of 1.0.0.incubating-SNAPSHOT?
>>
>
> Not necessarily. It's just that we'll need to keep the different format in
> mind.
>
>
>
>> There are two things which might make this a moot point:
>>> 1) If the eba-maven-plugin is enhanced to generate the APPLICATION.MF
>>> then
>>> we can use that to resolve the issue.
>>>
>>
>> Yes I agree eba-maven-plugin should pull the same trick as the
>> maven-bundle-plugin to ensure version numbers fit with the OSGi spec
>> (whatever the logic for that conversion is).
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
>> 2) Even though this is an issue with SNAPSHOTs I imagine it isn't an
>>> issue
>>> with a non-snapshot release because it won't container the "-XXX"
>>> qualification.
>>>
>>
>> I think it'll continue to be an issue while we are using the -incubating
>> suffix.
>>
>
> Agreed. I wasn't sure if we were releasing 0.1 or 0.1-incubating.
>
>
>
>> Optionally, I could also just omit the APPLICATION.MF altogether from the
>>> AriesTrader EBAs since I understand that it is not required. That might
>>> be
>>> quickest fix for now.
>>>
>>
>> Do all the AriesTrader .eba files contain, by value, all the bundles
>> they need? And, is that set transitively closed? If so then you
>> certainly could remove the APPLICATION.MF. Or is it using the OBR
>> resolver integration code to pull in bundles from a repository?
>>
>
> At the moment the eba includes the complete set of bundles by value.
> However, I'm not sure if that will always be the case (or even if it will be
> the case in all environments for some of the dependencies, such as slf4j).
> I'll experiment a bit.
>
>
>
>> Joe
>>>
>>> David Jencks wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 10:33 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I agree that we should make a global change to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>>> first. Why wouldn't we just do that now?
>>>>>
>>>> I started doing some experiments here...
>>>>
>>>> running
>>>> mvn versions:set -DnewVersion=0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>>
>>>> in root and parent upgrades everything maven knows about just fine.
>>>> However there's (1) mentioned below and also a hardcoded version in two
>>>> blueprint-itests.
>>>>
>>>> According to
>>>>
>>>> http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxexam/Configuration+using+Maven+Plugin
>>>>
>>>> we should be able to replace the hardcoded versions with
>>>> .versionAsInProject()
>>>>
>>>> if we run the maven-paxexam-plugin on the project. However I can't get
>>>> it
>>>> to work yet.
>>>>
>>>>> Just a heads-up on some other issues related to versions in samples.
>>>>> There are two potential problems that I am aware of:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) For both Blog-Sample and AriesTrader there are hard-coded version
>>>>> references in the Equinox assembly config.ini file which are used to
>>>>> specify
>>>>> the bundle jars that are to be started for the assembly. Naturally, the
>>>>> versions of the aries bundles in this file won't be updated by the
>>>>> maven-release-plugin. I'm not sure of a good solution for this beyond
>>>>> just
>>>>> manually changing the config.ini files prior to creating a release
>>>>> candidate.
>>>>>
>>>> I think we might be able to work around this by putting the config.ini
>>>> files in src/main/resources/filtered-resources and defining a bunch of
>>>> properties in an appropriate pom and using them for the version imports
>>>> of
>>>> the aries subproject dependencyManagement imports in the samples root
>>>> pom.
>>>> I haven't tried this yet...
>>>>
>>>> 2) I think there is still an unresolved issue related to Blog-Sample
>>>>> and
>>>>> how we might be able to demonstrate a bundle upgrade scenario. I'm
>>>>> not
>>>>> sure if this capability is included yet in Blog-Sample - so it might
>>>>> still
>>>>> be a non-issue at the moment. However, we had some discussion on this
>>>>> a
>>>>> week ago or so related to how we might be able to include multiple
>>>>> versions
>>>>> of components in the sample so that an upgrade scenario could be
>>>>> demonstrated. If that is still a goal for the 0.1 release we will need
>>>>> to
>>>>> come up with some solution.
>>>>>
>>>> no ideas from me on this one :-)
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think everything is ok.... I think (at least with dryRun=true) that
>>>>>> the release plugin builds the project first as-is and checks that
>>>>>> signing
>>>>>> etc works.
>>>>>> I added autoVersionSubmodules=true in the root parent pom which will
>>>>>> make things work more smoothly :-)
>>>>>> I really recommend changing the version to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>>>> first, I'm happy to do this if you want.
>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> scratch that. I'm working thru this:
>>>>>>> http://maven.apache.org/developers/release/apache-release.html as
>>>>>>> there's several steps I haven't done.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2 March 2010 16:17, Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2 March 2010 02:28, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've done most of what I think is needed for aries to be basically
>>>>>>>>> releasable. There are some bits left and possibly stuff I've
>>>>>>>>> missed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. legal file review. There are a bunch of NOTICE files that claim
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> work from osgi is included. Really? license and notice files are
>>>>>>>>> supposed
>>>>>>>>> to apply to what is actually in an artifact or checkout. Are some
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>> source files copied from an osgi source? Also all the legal files
>>>>>>>>> that end
>>>>>>>>> up in binary artifacts need to be checked. Also we need to run the
>>>>>>>>> rat
>>>>>>>>> plugin: this should be configured in the default pom. Not sure if
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>> get to this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2. actually using the eba-maven-plugn. I'm not entirely sure how
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>> sure that an eba is working so I didn't mess with this. I think
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> plugin
>>>>>>>>> itself is working well enough to use though.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2. ordering dependencies and dependency management. I find it
>>>>>>>>> convenient to
>>>>>>>>> have these alphabetized so I can find what I'm looking for, but I
>>>>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>>>>> done this in most poms. I'm not sure why there isn't a usable tool
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> doing this but I haven't found one. Dull but useful...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3. It would probably be a really good idea to run mvn
>>>>>>>>> dependency:analyze and
>>>>>>>>> look carefully at the results. The results from this can require
>>>>>>>>> interpretation so its best if someone who is very familiar with how
>>>>>>>>> the code
>>>>>>>>> works does this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 4. before a release all snapshots need to be resolved to released
>>>>>>>>> versions.
>>>>>>>>> I don't know if there are any snapshots.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To summarize what I've tried to do:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. default-parent has dependency management for the basic osgi
>>>>>>>>> dependencies
>>>>>>>>> that all projects are pretty sure to use including the pax stuff
>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>> mostly
>>>>>>>>> for testing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2. each subproject has legal files in its checkout root
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3. each subproject has an scm element in its pom, but no others do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 4. each subproject has dependency management for everything
>>>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>>> in it.
>>>>>>>>> In addition, it has its subprojects listed in dependency
>>>>>>>>> management.
>>>>>>>>> (this
>>>>>>>>> is bent slightly for the samples). This means that
>>>>>>>>> (a) modules in a subproject don't need to include versions for use
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>> modules
>>>>>>>>> (b) you can get dependency management for all the modules in a
>>>>>>>>> subproject
>>>>>>>>> by depending on the subproject pom with scope import. (see the
>>>>>>>>> samples pom
>>>>>>>>> for an example).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 5. As a result of (4), modules don't have any versions in any
>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>> elements.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Release is going to involve...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> releasing the parent
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In trunk/parent I tried:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> mvn -DdryRun=true release:prepare -Papache-release
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Providing 0.1-incubating for the release version
>>>>>>>> Defaulting to parent-0.1-incubating for the SCM release tag
>>>>>>>> Defaulting to 0.2-incubating-SNAPSHOT for the new development
>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> then when it builds the 'Top Parent POM' it outputs this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building Aries :: Top Parent POM
>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] task-segment: [clean, verify]
>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [clean:clean]
>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: classpath.resource.loader.class =>
>>>>>>>> 'org.codehaus.plexus.velocity.ContextClassLoaderResourceLoader'.
>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: velocimacro.messages.on => 'false'.
>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.loader => 'classpath'.
>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.manager.logwhenfound =>
>>>>>>>> 'false'.
>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [remote-resources:process {execution: default}]
>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [site:attach-descriptor]
>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [assembly:single {execution: source-release-assembly}]
>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added,
>>>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already
>>>>>>>> added,
>>>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already added,
>>>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building zip:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> C:\cygwin\home\hughesj\oss\aries\trunk\parent\target\parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-source-release.zip
>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added,
>>>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already
>>>>>>>> added,
>>>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already added,
>>>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Preparing source:jar
>>>>>>>> [INFO] [WARNING] Removing: jar from forked lifecycle, to prevent
>>>>>>>> recursive invocation.
>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] No goals needed for project - skipping
>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [source:jar {execution: attach-sources}]
>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [javadoc:jar {execution: attach-javadocs}]
>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Not executing Javadoc as the project is not a Java
>>>>>>>> classpath-capable package
>>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [gpg:sign {execution: default}]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> so it seems to be outputting 1.0.0 artifacts still. Any ideas?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then stops at the gpg stage. I thought it would prompt me for my key
>>>>>>>> passphrase at this point. Do I need gpg-agent to be running?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> updating the parent version wherever it is used (all subproject
>>>>>>>>> parents)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> releasing the subprojects in an appropriate order and updating
>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>> versions wherever they are used.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It might be worthwhile changing the pom version to
>>>>>>>>> 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>>>>>>> (or something similar, 0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT?) before doing this
>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>> then the versions plugin can be used to update use of a subproject
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> newly released version of what it uses. Going from
>>>>>>>>> 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT to 0.1-incubating won't allow this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As noted in the "root" pom, don't try to release the root pom and
>>>>>>>>> don't try
>>>>>>>>> release everything at once from the root pom.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 11:55 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I started looking into cleaning up the build, and of course it is
>>>>>>>>>> taking
>>>>>>>>>> longer than I expected.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm seriously hampered by failing tests in a fresh checkout.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are some projects in application that stop compiling if you
>>>>>>>>>> alphabetize the dependencies. It looks like osgi 3 artifacts are
>>>>>>>>>> getting on
>>>>>>>>>> the maven classpath before osgi 4.2 artifacts. Adding exclusions
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> dependencies seems to fix it if you can figure out where the out
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> date
>>>>>>>>>> jars are coming from.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The build is already much closer to a multi-release model than a
>>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>> release model.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've diffed what I have so far and attached it to ARIES-173. It
>>>>>>>>>> includes
>>>>>>>>>> scm info and a lot of version corrections. Due to the failing
>>>>>>>>>> tests
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not
>>>>>>>>>> too comfortable committing it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is anyone else seeing test failures locally?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Lin Sun wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It 'd be great if you are willing to fix these build issues,
>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> just went through a big release in Geronimo. :)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I know the maven release plugin isn't friendly to use some cases,
>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>> it is best we get these resolved to make our release process a
>>>>>>>>>>> bit
>>>>>>>>>>> easier.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> EBA plugin would be a very nice add-on, if it comes in time with
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Lin
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, David Jencks
>>>>>>>>>>> <da...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to understand the problems you see better, but I do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the maven background you guys have, any chance you could
>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems are, why they are problems and the solution at some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> point?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The biggest immediate problem is that without correct svn info
>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>> a release with the release plugin. I'm pretty sure the way its
>>>>>>>>>>>> set up
>>>>>>>>>>>> now,
>>>>>>>>>>>> when you try, the tag will be under maven's apache pom, not
>>>>>>>>>>>> aries.
>>>>>>>>>>>> (you'll
>>>>>>>>>>>> fail unless you happen to be a maven committer too). You
>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> want to try to do a release without the release plugin.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Organizationally there's no way that for instance blueprint,
>>>>>>>>>>>> application,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and samples should always be released in synchrony. Any time
>>>>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>>> happen to be ready for release at the same time it will be
>>>>>>>>>>>> purely
>>>>>>>>>>>> accidental. Right now everyone wants to get a milestone out the
>>>>>>>>>>>> door,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>> looking at the different projects their state of completion is
>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>>>> wildly different. A decision to release all of them at once is
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> based in
>>>>>>>>>>>> any way on them being equally complete. I'm suggesting that
>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes are needed anyway, why not set up a maintainable structure
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>> continue to work beyond this publicity release. The benefit to
>>>>>>>>>>>> users is
>>>>>>>>>>>> that aries will be able to release bits in a timely fashion;
>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> entire project will never be in a releasable state at once. (I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>> exaggerating a little bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What got me looking at this at all is what look like wild
>>>>>>>>>>>> gyrations that
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't really use maven properly to get an .eba (or some
>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact)
>>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> door. This might be ok for one release but (a) I think this can
>>>>>>>>>>>> be done
>>>>>>>>>>>> directly with the assembly plugin short term and (b) an
>>>>>>>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin
>>>>>>>>>>>> seems like the obvious more long term solution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to fix the build and probably work on an eba plugin,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>>>>> be sure this is ok with everyone first.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alasdair
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23 Feb 2010, at 18:18, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This discussion got me worried enough to take a look at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aries
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I'm even more worried.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While it might feel good to try to push out a release as fast
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd prefer to see a sustainable build system in place first.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> far
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks to me as if aries is going to be a bunch of loosely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coupled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subprojects. Building them all at once is not going to work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we should recognize that and put that in the build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this means:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. a parent pom that isn't at the root of the svn trunk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. each subproject has pom info sufficient so it can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> released
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> svn info) (right now this is completely missing everywhere as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> far as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see, which will result in ares getting tagged into svn as part
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apache
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pom)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can still have a "fake" pom that builds everything, but it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of any release procedure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having separately released subprojects does not prevent having
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vote on all the releases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd suggest a few other pom tweaks such as using resources and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> filtered-resources to distinguish when filtering is called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In addition relevant to this particular bit of the thread, we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin to assemble ebas. Getting this into a first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a great idea IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there's general agreement I can spend some time playing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and possibly working on the eba plugin.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 February 2010 13:09, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to see us release the sample applications but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least one complication. Both Blog Sample and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AriesTrader
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EBAs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using different techniques - but both leverage the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-antrun-plugin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally produce a file of type "eba".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I realised the .eba file generated in the blog-assembly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> module
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being pushed into my local repo. I've made some changes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pom.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in ARIES-198 to fix this. So now it uses antrun to create
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .eba
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact and the build-helper-maven-plugin to push the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local repo. I needed to add NOTICE and LICENSE files to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .eba for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ianal plugin in the verify phase to succeed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've not used the build-helper-maven-plugin before. Do you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will work with the maven-release-plugin to push the eba
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifacts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when we do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a release? If so, then I should look at using the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AriesTrader.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the result is that the eba will not be available in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repository.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the differences is that AriesTrader first generates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-assembly-plugin and then copies this to an eba. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jar will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> managed by maven and IIUC it should be deployable as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "application"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an extension of "jar" rather than "eba". If that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps delivery of an application jar is an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1st
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. Unfortunately I haven't actually setup my equinox
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assembly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deploy the eba yet - it still deploys all of the individual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bundles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using the maven-assembly-plugin likely the preferred
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term. Perhaps we could copy the artifact to .eba and use the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build-helper-maven-plugin to remove the .jar artifact from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control and add the .eba one?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can give this a try for AriesTrader. If it doesn't work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there anything wrong with the approach I mentioned earlier of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jar artifacts rather than the eba artifacts? Will the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support only look at *.eba archives?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to see at least those included:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * blueprint
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jmx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jndi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * transaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think applications are really usable yet and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looked at JPA yet, so can't tell about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The transaction component is functional and we've been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unchanged since a long time in ServiceMix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any particular concerns with it ? (I'm not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declarative transactions for blueprint, note).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 04:19, Joe Bohn <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> joebohn@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the response (even while on vacation!) ... and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be the release manager. Your response helps me get a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> picture
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the plans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was really just interested in the general objectives
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hadn't been discussed yet. To get the release out in Feb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> delivered next week. I'm afraid the hill might be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steep to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climb that quickly but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The more communication the better. It's important to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and planning along the same lines (or understand quickly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences of opinion). Knowing that you are thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release candidate next week means that we should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restrictive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on new content to avoid any unpleasant surprises.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any strong opinions on what should be in or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general it doesn't make sense to release things that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functional.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment I'm not sure what those are - but I suspect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components are fully functional yet (for example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joe, sorry I started setting myself up tuesday but am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacation until monday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I think the 0.1 release should serve to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right now in the respectable form the ASF requires. So
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haves'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are to get the build in the right shape to create the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files that are acceptable to the IPMC. I think each main
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> area of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code deserves at least a README to describe what's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is the first release there are likely a few
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unknowns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> w.r.t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timing I hope/expect to get the release out this in feb.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular JIRAs or other issues you feel should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. I'd like to rename the current JIRA version 1.0 to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues for 0.1 appropriately and issues not for 0.1 to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.2 version. WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 February 2010 15:39, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are your current thoughts and goals regarding the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target dates?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it would be good if you could summarize your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps on a page in the wiki that we can keep updated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of particular interest would be the content that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first release (clarifying what we consider "must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have" from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have"), the current status of that content, target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the process that we plan to use to generate the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12 February 2010 09:39, Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <gn...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great, thanks a lot. Let us know if you need any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess if you take some notes, it would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the wiki.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Certainly will. It's been a while since I did one and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed quite a bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:32, Jeremy Hughes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <hu...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Kevan, thanks. I volunteer to be release manager.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 February 2010 16:38, Kevan Miller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ke...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like the consensus is for a release with all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version number. Best to start with a simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versioning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I don't view a 0.1 blueprint release as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Showing the ability to generate an Apache release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the community. Would definitely like to see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We'll need a release manager. Any volunteers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --kevan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Joe
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Joe
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Joe
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aries release
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Mar 2, 2010, at 2:40 PM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
> On 2 March 2010 19:30, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks David.
>>
>> After I sent my last note I recalled another place in AriesTrader
>> with
>> hard-coded versions. The APPLICATION.MF files used for the two
>> EBAs that
>> are generated includes the bundle version - which is a little
>> different than
>> the maven version. Where the maven version is currently
>> 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT the bundle version generated using the
>> maven-bundle-plugin is 1.0.0.incubating-SNAPSHOT to conform to the
>> OSGi
>> version scheme.
>
> Are you saying we couldn't quite generate the APPLICATION.MF using
> resource filtering because the ${version} will be
> 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT instead of 1.0.0.incubating-SNAPSHOT?
That wouldn't be a problem, but I'm not sure if the eba-maven-plugin
is filtering the (supplied) application.mf at the moment. We might
need to fix that.
>
>>
>> There are two things which might make this a moot point:
>> 1) If the eba-maven-plugin is enhanced to generate the
>> APPLICATION.MF then
>> we can use that to resolve the issue.
>
> Yes I agree eba-maven-plugin should pull the same trick as the
> maven-bundle-plugin to ensure version numbers fit with the OSGi spec
> (whatever the logic for that conversion is).
That's going to take a little more help... would take me some thought.
thanks
david jencks
>
>> 2) Even though this is an issue with SNAPSHOTs I imagine it isn't
>> an issue
>> with a non-snapshot release because it won't container the "-XXX"
>> qualification.
>
> I think it'll continue to be an issue while we are using the -
> incubating suffix.
>
>>
>> Optionally, I could also just omit the APPLICATION.MF altogether
>> from the
>> AriesTrader EBAs since I understand that it is not required. That
>> might be
>> quickest fix for now.
>
> Do all the AriesTrader .eba files contain, by value, all the bundles
> they need? And, is that set transitively closed? If so then you
> certainly could remove the APPLICATION.MF. Or is it using the OBR
> resolver integration code to pull in bundles from a repository?
>
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> David Jencks wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 10:33 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree that we should make a global change to 0.1-incubating-
>>>> SNAPSHOT
>>>> first. Why wouldn't we just do that now?
>>>
>>> I started doing some experiments here...
>>>
>>> running
>>> mvn versions:set -DnewVersion=0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>
>>> in root and parent upgrades everything maven knows about just fine.
>>> However there's (1) mentioned below and also a hardcoded version
>>> in two
>>> blueprint-itests.
>>>
>>> According to
>>>
>>> http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxexam/Configuration+using+Maven+Plugin
>>>
>>> we should be able to replace the hardcoded versions with
>>> .versionAsInProject()
>>>
>>> if we run the maven-paxexam-plugin on the project. However I can't
>>> get it
>>> to work yet.
>>>>
>>>> Just a heads-up on some other issues related to versions in
>>>> samples.
>>>> There are two potential problems that I am aware of:
>>>>
>>>> 1) For both Blog-Sample and AriesTrader there are hard-coded
>>>> version
>>>> references in the Equinox assembly config.ini file which are used
>>>> to specify
>>>> the bundle jars that are to be started for the assembly.
>>>> Naturally, the
>>>> versions of the aries bundles in this file won't be updated by the
>>>> maven-release-plugin. I'm not sure of a good solution for this
>>>> beyond just
>>>> manually changing the config.ini files prior to creating a release
>>>> candidate.
>>>
>>> I think we might be able to work around this by putting the
>>> config.ini
>>> files in src/main/resources/filtered-resources and defining a
>>> bunch of
>>> properties in an appropriate pom and using them for the version
>>> imports of
>>> the aries subproject dependencyManagement imports in the samples
>>> root pom.
>>> I haven't tried this yet...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2) I think there is still an unresolved issue related to Blog-
>>>> Sample and
>>>> how we might be able to demonstrate a bundle upgrade scenario.
>>>> I'm not
>>>> sure if this capability is included yet in Blog-Sample - so it
>>>> might still
>>>> be a non-issue at the moment. However, we had some discussion on
>>>> this a
>>>> week ago or so related to how we might be able to include
>>>> multiple versions
>>>> of components in the sample so that an upgrade scenario could be
>>>> demonstrated. If that is still a goal for the 0.1 release we
>>>> will need to
>>>> come up with some solution.
>>>
>>> no ideas from me on this one :-)
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think everything is ok.... I think (at least with dryRun=true)
>>>>> that
>>>>> the release plugin builds the project first as-is and checks
>>>>> that signing
>>>>> etc works.
>>>>> I added autoVersionSubmodules=true in the root parent pom which
>>>>> will
>>>>> make things work more smoothly :-)
>>>>> I really recommend changing the version to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>>> first, I'm happy to do this if you want.
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> scratch that. I'm working thru this:
>>>>>> http://maven.apache.org/developers/release/apache-release.html as
>>>>>> there's several steps I haven't done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2 March 2010 16:17, Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2 March 2010 02:28, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've done most of what I think is needed for aries to be
>>>>>>>> basically
>>>>>>>> releasable. There are some bits left and possibly stuff I've
>>>>>>>> missed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. legal file review. There are a bunch of NOTICE files that
>>>>>>>> claim
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> work from osgi is included. Really? license and notice
>>>>>>>> files are
>>>>>>>> supposed
>>>>>>>> to apply to what is actually in an artifact or checkout. Are
>>>>>>>> some of
>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>> source files copied from an osgi source? Also all the legal
>>>>>>>> files
>>>>>>>> that end
>>>>>>>> up in binary artifacts need to be checked. Also we need to
>>>>>>>> run the
>>>>>>>> rat
>>>>>>>> plugin: this should be configured in the default pom. Not
>>>>>>>> sure if I
>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>> get to this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. actually using the eba-maven-plugn. I'm not entirely sure
>>>>>>>> how to
>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>> sure that an eba is working so I didn't mess with this. I
>>>>>>>> think the
>>>>>>>> plugin
>>>>>>>> itself is working well enough to use though.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. ordering dependencies and dependency management. I find it
>>>>>>>> convenient to
>>>>>>>> have these alphabetized so I can find what I'm looking for,
>>>>>>>> but I
>>>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>>>> done this in most poms. I'm not sure why there isn't a
>>>>>>>> usable tool
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> doing this but I haven't found one. Dull but useful...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3. It would probably be a really good idea to run mvn
>>>>>>>> dependency:analyze and
>>>>>>>> look carefully at the results. The results from this can
>>>>>>>> require
>>>>>>>> interpretation so its best if someone who is very familiar
>>>>>>>> with how
>>>>>>>> the code
>>>>>>>> works does this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4. before a release all snapshots need to be resolved to
>>>>>>>> released
>>>>>>>> versions.
>>>>>>>> I don't know if there are any snapshots.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To summarize what I've tried to do:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. default-parent has dependency management for the basic osgi
>>>>>>>> dependencies
>>>>>>>> that all projects are pretty sure to use including the pax
>>>>>>>> stuff used
>>>>>>>> mostly
>>>>>>>> for testing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. each subproject has legal files in its checkout root
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3. each subproject has an scm element in its pom, but no
>>>>>>>> others do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4. each subproject has dependency management for everything
>>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>> in it.
>>>>>>>> In addition, it has its subprojects listed in dependency
>>>>>>>> management.
>>>>>>>> (this
>>>>>>>> is bent slightly for the samples). This means that
>>>>>>>> (a) modules in a subproject don't need to include versions
>>>>>>>> for use of
>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>> modules
>>>>>>>> (b) you can get dependency management for all the modules in a
>>>>>>>> subproject
>>>>>>>> by depending on the subproject pom with scope import. (see the
>>>>>>>> samples pom
>>>>>>>> for an example).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 5. As a result of (4), modules don't have any versions in any
>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>> elements.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Release is going to involve...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> releasing the parent
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In trunk/parent I tried:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mvn -DdryRun=true release:prepare -Papache-release
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Providing 0.1-incubating for the release version
>>>>>>> Defaulting to parent-0.1-incubating for the SCM release tag
>>>>>>> Defaulting to 0.2-incubating-SNAPSHOT for the new development
>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> then when it builds the 'Top Parent POM' it outputs this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building Aries :: Top Parent POM
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] task-segment: [clean, verify]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [clean:clean]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property:
>>>>>>> classpath.resource.loader.class =>
>>>>>>> 'org.codehaus.plexus.velocity.ContextClassLoaderResourceLoader'.
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: velocimacro.messages.on =>
>>>>>>> 'false'.
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.loader => 'classpath'.
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.manager.logwhenfound =>
>>>>>>> 'false'.
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [remote-resources:process {execution: default}]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [site:attach-descriptor]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [assembly:single {execution: source-release-
>>>>>>> assembly}]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added,
>>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already
>>>>>>> added,
>>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already
>>>>>>> added,
>>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building zip:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> C:\cygwin\home\hughesj\oss\aries\trunk\parent\target
>>>>>>> \parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-source-release.zip
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added,
>>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already
>>>>>>> added,
>>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already
>>>>>>> added,
>>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Preparing source:jar
>>>>>>> [INFO] [WARNING] Removing: jar from forked lifecycle, to prevent
>>>>>>> recursive invocation.
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] No goals needed for project - skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [source:jar {execution: attach-sources}]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [javadoc:jar {execution: attach-javadocs}]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Not executing Javadoc as the project is not a Java
>>>>>>> classpath-capable package
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [gpg:sign {execution: default}]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so it seems to be outputting 1.0.0 artifacts still. Any ideas?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then stops at the gpg stage. I thought it would prompt me for
>>>>>>> my key
>>>>>>> passphrase at this point. Do I need gpg-agent to be running?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> updating the parent version wherever it is used (all subproject
>>>>>>>> parents)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> releasing the subprojects in an appropriate order and
>>>>>>>> updating their
>>>>>>>> versions wherever they are used.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It might be worthwhile changing the pom version to
>>>>>>>> 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>>>>>> (or something similar, 0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT?) before doing
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>> then the versions plugin can be used to update use of a
>>>>>>>> subproject to
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> newly released version of what it uses. Going from
>>>>>>>> 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT to 0.1-incubating won't allow this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As noted in the "root" pom, don't try to release the root pom
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> don't try
>>>>>>>> release everything at once from the root pom.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 11:55 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I started looking into cleaning up the build, and of course
>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>> taking
>>>>>>>>> longer than I expected.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm seriously hampered by failing tests in a fresh checkout.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are some projects in application that stop compiling
>>>>>>>>> if you
>>>>>>>>> alphabetize the dependencies. It looks like osgi 3
>>>>>>>>> artifacts are
>>>>>>>>> getting on
>>>>>>>>> the maven classpath before osgi 4.2 artifacts. Adding
>>>>>>>>> exclusions to
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> dependencies seems to fix it if you can figure out where the
>>>>>>>>> out of
>>>>>>>>> date
>>>>>>>>> jars are coming from.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The build is already much closer to a multi-release model
>>>>>>>>> than a
>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>> release model.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've diffed what I have so far and attached it to
>>>>>>>>> ARIES-173. It
>>>>>>>>> includes
>>>>>>>>> scm info and a lot of version corrections. Due to the
>>>>>>>>> failing tests
>>>>>>>>> I'm not
>>>>>>>>> too comfortable committing it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is anyone else seeing test failures locally?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Lin Sun wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It 'd be great if you are willing to fix these build
>>>>>>>>>> issues, since
>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>> just went through a big release in Geronimo. :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I know the maven release plugin isn't friendly to use some
>>>>>>>>>> cases,
>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>> it is best we get these resolved to make our release
>>>>>>>>>> process a bit
>>>>>>>>>> easier.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> EBA plugin would be a very nice add-on, if it comes in time
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lin
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, David Jencks
>>>>>>>>>> <da...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to understand the problems you see better,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but I do
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> the maven background you guys have, any chance you could
>>>>>>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> problems are, why they are problems and the solution at
>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>> point?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The biggest immediate problem is that without correct svn
>>>>>>>>>>> info you
>>>>>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>> a release with the release plugin. I'm pretty sure the
>>>>>>>>>>> way its
>>>>>>>>>>> set up
>>>>>>>>>>> now,
>>>>>>>>>>> when you try, the tag will be under maven's apache pom,
>>>>>>>>>>> not aries.
>>>>>>>>>>> (you'll
>>>>>>>>>>> fail unless you happen to be a maven committer too). You
>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>> want to try to do a release without the release plugin.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Organizationally there's no way that for instance blueprint,
>>>>>>>>>>> application,
>>>>>>>>>>> and samples should always be released in synchrony. Any
>>>>>>>>>>> time two
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>> happen to be ready for release at the same time it will be
>>>>>>>>>>> purely
>>>>>>>>>>> accidental. Right now everyone wants to get a milestone
>>>>>>>>>>> out the
>>>>>>>>>>> door,
>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>> looking at the different projects their state of
>>>>>>>>>>> completion is
>>>>>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>>> wildly different. A decision to release all of them at
>>>>>>>>>>> once is
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> based in
>>>>>>>>>>> any way on them being equally complete. I'm suggesting
>>>>>>>>>>> that since
>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>> fixes are needed anyway, why not set up a maintainable
>>>>>>>>>>> structure
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> continue to work beyond this publicity release. The
>>>>>>>>>>> benefit to
>>>>>>>>>>> users is
>>>>>>>>>>> that aries will be able to release bits in a timely fashion;
>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> entire project will never be in a releasable state at
>>>>>>>>>>> once. (I'm
>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>> exaggerating a little bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What got me looking at this at all is what look like wild
>>>>>>>>>>> gyrations that
>>>>>>>>>>> don't really use maven properly to get an .eba (or some
>>>>>>>>>>> artifact)
>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> door. This might be ok for one release but (a) I think
>>>>>>>>>>> this can
>>>>>>>>>>> be done
>>>>>>>>>>> directly with the assembly plugin short term and (b) an
>>>>>>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin
>>>>>>>>>>> seems like the obvious more long term solution.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to fix the build and probably work on an eba
>>>>>>>>>>> plugin,
>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>>>> be sure this is ok with everyone first.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alasdair
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23 Feb 2010, at 18:18, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This discussion got me worried enough to take a look at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aries
>>>>>>>>>>>>> build.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I'm even more worried.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> While it might feel good to try to push out a release as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fast as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd prefer to see a sustainable build system in place
>>>>>>>>>>>>> first. So
>>>>>>>>>>>>> far
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks to me as if aries is going to be a bunch of loosely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> coupled
>>>>>>>>>>>>> subprojects. Building them all at once is not going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> work for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> long.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we should recognize that and put that in the build
>>>>>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>>>>> now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To me
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this means:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. a parent pom that isn't at the root of the svn trunk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. each subproject has pom info sufficient so it can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> released
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> svn info) (right now this is completely missing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> everywhere as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> far as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> see, which will result in ares getting tagged into svn
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as part
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> apache
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pom)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can still have a "fake" pom that builds everything,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of any release procedure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having separately released subprojects does not prevent
>>>>>>>>>>>>> having a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>>>> vote on all the releases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd suggest a few other pom tweaks such as using
>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> filtered-resources to distinguish when filtering is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> called for.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In addition relevant to this particular bit of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread, we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> need an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin to assemble ebas. Getting this into a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a great idea IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there's general agreement I can spend some time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> playing with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and possibly working on the eba plugin.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 February 2010 13:09, Joe Bohn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to see us release the sample
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least one complication. Both Blog Sample and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AriesTrader
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EBAs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using different techniques - but both leverage the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-antrun-plugin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally produce a file of type "eba".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I realised the .eba file generated in the blog-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assembly module
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being pushed into my local repo. I've made some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pom.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in ARIES-198 to fix this. So now it uses antrun to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .eba
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact and the build-helper-maven-plugin to push the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local repo. I needed to add NOTICE and LICENSE files
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .eba for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ianal plugin in the verify phase to succeed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've not used the build-helper-maven-plugin before. Do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will work with the maven-release-plugin to push the eba
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifacts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when we do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a release? If so, then I should look at using the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AriesTrader.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the result is that the eba will not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repository.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the differences is that AriesTrader first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generates a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-assembly-plugin and then copies this to an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eba. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jar will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> managed by maven and IIUC it should be deployable as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "application"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an extension of "jar" rather than "eba". If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps delivery of an application jar is an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1st
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. Unfortunately I haven't actually setup my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equinox
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assembly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deploy the eba yet - it still deploys all of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bundles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using the maven-assembly-plugin likely the preferred
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term. Perhaps we could copy the artifact to .eba and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build-helper-maven-plugin to remove the .jar artifact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control and add the .eba one?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can give this a try for AriesTrader. If it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there anything wrong with the approach I mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earlier of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jar artifacts rather than the eba artifacts? Will the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support only look at *.eba archives?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to see at least those included:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * blueprint
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jmx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jndi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * transaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think applications are really usable yet and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looked at JPA yet, so can't tell about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The transaction component is functional and we've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unchanged since a long time in ServiceMix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any particular concerns with it ? (I'm not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declarative transactions for blueprint, note).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 04:19, Joe Bohn <joebohn@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the response (even while on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacation!) ... and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be the release manager. Your response helps me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> picture
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the plans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was really just interested in the general
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objectives and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hadn't been discussed yet. To get the release out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Feb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> delivered next week. I'm afraid the hill might be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a little
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steep to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climb that quickly but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The more communication the better. It's important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and planning along the same lines (or understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quickly if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences of opinion). Knowing that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release candidate next week means that we should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restrictive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on new content to avoid any unpleasant surprises.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any strong opinions on what should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general it doesn't make sense to release things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functional.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment I'm not sure what those are - but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspect not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components are fully functional yet (for example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joe, sorry I started setting myself up tuesday
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacation until monday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I think the 0.1 release should serve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right now in the respectable form the ASF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires. So
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haves'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are to get the build in the right shape to create
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files that are acceptable to the IPMC. I think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each main
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> area of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code deserves at least a README to describe what's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is the first release there are likely a few
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unknowns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> w.r.t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timing I hope/expect to get the release out this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in feb.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular JIRAs or other issues you feel should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. I'd like to rename the current JIRA version
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.0 to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues for 0.1 appropriately and issues not for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1 to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.2 version. WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 February 2010 15:39, Joe Bohn <joebohn@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are your current thoughts and goals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regarding the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target dates?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it would be good if you could summarize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps on a page in the wiki that we can keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> updated as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of particular interest would be the content that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first release (clarifying what we consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have" from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have"), the current status of that content,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target dates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the process that we plan to use to generate the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12 February 2010 09:39, Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <gn...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great, thanks a lot. Let us know if you need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess if you take some notes, it would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the wiki.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Certainly will. It's been a while since I did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed quite a bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:32, Jeremy Hughes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <hu...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Kevan, thanks. I volunteer to be release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manager.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 February 2010 16:38, Kevan Miller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ke...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like the consensus is for a release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version number. Best to start with a simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versioning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I don't view a 0.1 blueprint
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Showing the ability to generate an Apache
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the community. Would definitely like to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We'll need a release manager. Any volunteers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --kevan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Joe
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Joe
>>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aries release
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>.
Sorry, I thought I replied to this yesterday but see that I didn't.
Jeremy Hughes wrote:
> On 2 March 2010 19:30, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks David.
>>
>> After I sent my last note I recalled another place in AriesTrader with
>> hard-coded versions. The APPLICATION.MF files used for the two EBAs that
>> are generated includes the bundle version - which is a little different than
>> the maven version. Where the maven version is currently
>> 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT the bundle version generated using the
>> maven-bundle-plugin is 1.0.0.incubating-SNAPSHOT to conform to the OSGi
>> version scheme.
>
> Are you saying we couldn't quite generate the APPLICATION.MF using
> resource filtering because the ${version} will be
> 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT instead of 1.0.0.incubating-SNAPSHOT?
Not necessarily. It's just that we'll need to keep the different format
in mind.
>
>> There are two things which might make this a moot point:
>> 1) If the eba-maven-plugin is enhanced to generate the APPLICATION.MF then
>> we can use that to resolve the issue.
>
> Yes I agree eba-maven-plugin should pull the same trick as the
> maven-bundle-plugin to ensure version numbers fit with the OSGi spec
> (whatever the logic for that conversion is).
Yes.
>
>> 2) Even though this is an issue with SNAPSHOTs I imagine it isn't an issue
>> with a non-snapshot release because it won't container the "-XXX"
>> qualification.
>
> I think it'll continue to be an issue while we are using the -incubating suffix.
Agreed. I wasn't sure if we were releasing 0.1 or 0.1-incubating.
>
>> Optionally, I could also just omit the APPLICATION.MF altogether from the
>> AriesTrader EBAs since I understand that it is not required. That might be
>> quickest fix for now.
>
> Do all the AriesTrader .eba files contain, by value, all the bundles
> they need? And, is that set transitively closed? If so then you
> certainly could remove the APPLICATION.MF. Or is it using the OBR
> resolver integration code to pull in bundles from a repository?
At the moment the eba includes the complete set of bundles by value.
However, I'm not sure if that will always be the case (or even if it
will be the case in all environments for some of the dependencies, such
as slf4j). I'll experiment a bit.
>
>> Joe
>>
>> David Jencks wrote:
>>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 10:33 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree that we should make a global change to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>> first. Why wouldn't we just do that now?
>>> I started doing some experiments here...
>>>
>>> running
>>> mvn versions:set -DnewVersion=0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>
>>> in root and parent upgrades everything maven knows about just fine.
>>> However there's (1) mentioned below and also a hardcoded version in two
>>> blueprint-itests.
>>>
>>> According to
>>>
>>> http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxexam/Configuration+using+Maven+Plugin
>>>
>>> we should be able to replace the hardcoded versions with
>>> .versionAsInProject()
>>>
>>> if we run the maven-paxexam-plugin on the project. However I can't get it
>>> to work yet.
>>>> Just a heads-up on some other issues related to versions in samples.
>>>> There are two potential problems that I am aware of:
>>>>
>>>> 1) For both Blog-Sample and AriesTrader there are hard-coded version
>>>> references in the Equinox assembly config.ini file which are used to specify
>>>> the bundle jars that are to be started for the assembly. Naturally, the
>>>> versions of the aries bundles in this file won't be updated by the
>>>> maven-release-plugin. I'm not sure of a good solution for this beyond just
>>>> manually changing the config.ini files prior to creating a release
>>>> candidate.
>>> I think we might be able to work around this by putting the config.ini
>>> files in src/main/resources/filtered-resources and defining a bunch of
>>> properties in an appropriate pom and using them for the version imports of
>>> the aries subproject dependencyManagement imports in the samples root pom.
>>> I haven't tried this yet...
>>>
>>>> 2) I think there is still an unresolved issue related to Blog-Sample and
>>>> how we might be able to demonstrate a bundle upgrade scenario. I'm not
>>>> sure if this capability is included yet in Blog-Sample - so it might still
>>>> be a non-issue at the moment. However, we had some discussion on this a
>>>> week ago or so related to how we might be able to include multiple versions
>>>> of components in the sample so that an upgrade scenario could be
>>>> demonstrated. If that is still a goal for the 0.1 release we will need to
>>>> come up with some solution.
>>> no ideas from me on this one :-)
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David Jencks wrote:
>>>>> I think everything is ok.... I think (at least with dryRun=true) that
>>>>> the release plugin builds the project first as-is and checks that signing
>>>>> etc works.
>>>>> I added autoVersionSubmodules=true in the root parent pom which will
>>>>> make things work more smoothly :-)
>>>>> I really recommend changing the version to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>>> first, I'm happy to do this if you want.
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>> scratch that. I'm working thru this:
>>>>>> http://maven.apache.org/developers/release/apache-release.html as
>>>>>> there's several steps I haven't done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2 March 2010 16:17, Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2 March 2010 02:28, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I've done most of what I think is needed for aries to be basically
>>>>>>>> releasable. There are some bits left and possibly stuff I've missed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. legal file review. There are a bunch of NOTICE files that claim
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> work from osgi is included. Really? license and notice files are
>>>>>>>> supposed
>>>>>>>> to apply to what is actually in an artifact or checkout. Are some of
>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>> source files copied from an osgi source? Also all the legal files
>>>>>>>> that end
>>>>>>>> up in binary artifacts need to be checked. Also we need to run the
>>>>>>>> rat
>>>>>>>> plugin: this should be configured in the default pom. Not sure if I
>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>> get to this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. actually using the eba-maven-plugn. I'm not entirely sure how to
>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>> sure that an eba is working so I didn't mess with this. I think the
>>>>>>>> plugin
>>>>>>>> itself is working well enough to use though.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. ordering dependencies and dependency management. I find it
>>>>>>>> convenient to
>>>>>>>> have these alphabetized so I can find what I'm looking for, but I
>>>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>>>> done this in most poms. I'm not sure why there isn't a usable tool
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> doing this but I haven't found one. Dull but useful...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3. It would probably be a really good idea to run mvn
>>>>>>>> dependency:analyze and
>>>>>>>> look carefully at the results. The results from this can require
>>>>>>>> interpretation so its best if someone who is very familiar with how
>>>>>>>> the code
>>>>>>>> works does this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4. before a release all snapshots need to be resolved to released
>>>>>>>> versions.
>>>>>>>> I don't know if there are any snapshots.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To summarize what I've tried to do:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. default-parent has dependency management for the basic osgi
>>>>>>>> dependencies
>>>>>>>> that all projects are pretty sure to use including the pax stuff used
>>>>>>>> mostly
>>>>>>>> for testing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. each subproject has legal files in its checkout root
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3. each subproject has an scm element in its pom, but no others do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4. each subproject has dependency management for everything included
>>>>>>>> in it.
>>>>>>>> In addition, it has its subprojects listed in dependency management.
>>>>>>>> (this
>>>>>>>> is bent slightly for the samples). This means that
>>>>>>>> (a) modules in a subproject don't need to include versions for use of
>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>> modules
>>>>>>>> (b) you can get dependency management for all the modules in a
>>>>>>>> subproject
>>>>>>>> by depending on the subproject pom with scope import. (see the
>>>>>>>> samples pom
>>>>>>>> for an example).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 5. As a result of (4), modules don't have any versions in any
>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>> elements.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Release is going to involve...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> releasing the parent
>>>>>>> In trunk/parent I tried:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mvn -DdryRun=true release:prepare -Papache-release
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Providing 0.1-incubating for the release version
>>>>>>> Defaulting to parent-0.1-incubating for the SCM release tag
>>>>>>> Defaulting to 0.2-incubating-SNAPSHOT for the new development version
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> then when it builds the 'Top Parent POM' it outputs this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building Aries :: Top Parent POM
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] task-segment: [clean, verify]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [clean:clean]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: classpath.resource.loader.class =>
>>>>>>> 'org.codehaus.plexus.velocity.ContextClassLoaderResourceLoader'.
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: velocimacro.messages.on => 'false'.
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.loader => 'classpath'.
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.manager.logwhenfound =>
>>>>>>> 'false'.
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [remote-resources:process {execution: default}]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [site:attach-descriptor]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [assembly:single {execution: source-release-assembly}]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added,
>>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already added,
>>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already added,
>>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building zip:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> C:\cygwin\home\hughesj\oss\aries\trunk\parent\target\parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-source-release.zip
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added,
>>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already added,
>>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already added,
>>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Preparing source:jar
>>>>>>> [INFO] [WARNING] Removing: jar from forked lifecycle, to prevent
>>>>>>> recursive invocation.
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] No goals needed for project - skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [source:jar {execution: attach-sources}]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [javadoc:jar {execution: attach-javadocs}]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Not executing Javadoc as the project is not a Java
>>>>>>> classpath-capable package
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [gpg:sign {execution: default}]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so it seems to be outputting 1.0.0 artifacts still. Any ideas?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then stops at the gpg stage. I thought it would prompt me for my key
>>>>>>> passphrase at this point. Do I need gpg-agent to be running?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> updating the parent version wherever it is used (all subproject
>>>>>>>> parents)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> releasing the subprojects in an appropriate order and updating their
>>>>>>>> versions wherever they are used.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It might be worthwhile changing the pom version to
>>>>>>>> 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>>>>>> (or something similar, 0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT?) before doing this
>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>> then the versions plugin can be used to update use of a subproject to
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> newly released version of what it uses. Going from
>>>>>>>> 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT to 0.1-incubating won't allow this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As noted in the "root" pom, don't try to release the root pom and
>>>>>>>> don't try
>>>>>>>> release everything at once from the root pom.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 11:55 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I started looking into cleaning up the build, and of course it is
>>>>>>>>> taking
>>>>>>>>> longer than I expected.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm seriously hampered by failing tests in a fresh checkout.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are some projects in application that stop compiling if you
>>>>>>>>> alphabetize the dependencies. It looks like osgi 3 artifacts are
>>>>>>>>> getting on
>>>>>>>>> the maven classpath before osgi 4.2 artifacts. Adding exclusions to
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> dependencies seems to fix it if you can figure out where the out of
>>>>>>>>> date
>>>>>>>>> jars are coming from.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The build is already much closer to a multi-release model than a
>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>> release model.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've diffed what I have so far and attached it to ARIES-173. It
>>>>>>>>> includes
>>>>>>>>> scm info and a lot of version corrections. Due to the failing tests
>>>>>>>>> I'm not
>>>>>>>>> too comfortable committing it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is anyone else seeing test failures locally?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Lin Sun wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It 'd be great if you are willing to fix these build issues, since
>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>> just went through a big release in Geronimo. :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I know the maven release plugin isn't friendly to use some cases,
>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>> it is best we get these resolved to make our release process a bit
>>>>>>>>>> easier.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> EBA plugin would be a very nice add-on, if it comes in time with
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lin
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, David Jencks
>>>>>>>>>> <da...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to understand the problems you see better, but I do
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> the maven background you guys have, any chance you could explain
>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> problems are, why they are problems and the solution at some
>>>>>>>>>>>> point?
>>>>>>>>>>> The biggest immediate problem is that without correct svn info you
>>>>>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>> a release with the release plugin. I'm pretty sure the way its
>>>>>>>>>>> set up
>>>>>>>>>>> now,
>>>>>>>>>>> when you try, the tag will be under maven's apache pom, not aries.
>>>>>>>>>>> (you'll
>>>>>>>>>>> fail unless you happen to be a maven committer too). You
>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>> want to try to do a release without the release plugin.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Organizationally there's no way that for instance blueprint,
>>>>>>>>>>> application,
>>>>>>>>>>> and samples should always be released in synchrony. Any time two
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>> happen to be ready for release at the same time it will be purely
>>>>>>>>>>> accidental. Right now everyone wants to get a milestone out the
>>>>>>>>>>> door,
>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>> looking at the different projects their state of completion is
>>>>>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>>> wildly different. A decision to release all of them at once is
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> based in
>>>>>>>>>>> any way on them being equally complete. I'm suggesting that since
>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>> fixes are needed anyway, why not set up a maintainable structure
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> continue to work beyond this publicity release. The benefit to
>>>>>>>>>>> users is
>>>>>>>>>>> that aries will be able to release bits in a timely fashion;
>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> entire project will never be in a releasable state at once. (I'm
>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>> exaggerating a little bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What got me looking at this at all is what look like wild
>>>>>>>>>>> gyrations that
>>>>>>>>>>> don't really use maven properly to get an .eba (or some artifact)
>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> door. This might be ok for one release but (a) I think this can
>>>>>>>>>>> be done
>>>>>>>>>>> directly with the assembly plugin short term and (b) an
>>>>>>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin
>>>>>>>>>>> seems like the obvious more long term solution.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to fix the build and probably work on an eba plugin,
>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>>>> be sure this is ok with everyone first.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alasdair
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23 Feb 2010, at 18:18, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This discussion got me worried enough to take a look at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aries
>>>>>>>>>>>>> build.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I'm even more worried.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> While it might feel good to try to push out a release as fast as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd prefer to see a sustainable build system in place first. So
>>>>>>>>>>>>> far
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks to me as if aries is going to be a bunch of loosely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> coupled
>>>>>>>>>>>>> subprojects. Building them all at once is not going to work for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> long.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we should recognize that and put that in the build system
>>>>>>>>>>>>> now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To me
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this means:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. a parent pom that isn't at the root of the svn trunk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. each subproject has pom info sufficient so it can be released
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> svn info) (right now this is completely missing everywhere as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> far as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> see, which will result in ares getting tagged into svn as part
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> apache
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pom)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can still have a "fake" pom that builds everything, but it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of any release procedure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having separately released subprojects does not prevent having a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>>>> vote on all the releases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd suggest a few other pom tweaks such as using resources and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> filtered-resources to distinguish when filtering is called for.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In addition relevant to this particular bit of the thread, we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> need an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin to assemble ebas. Getting this into a first
>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a great idea IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there's general agreement I can spend some time playing with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and possibly working on the eba plugin.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 February 2010 13:09, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to see us release the sample applications but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least one complication. Both Blog Sample and AriesTrader
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EBAs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using different techniques - but both leverage the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-antrun-plugin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally produce a file of type "eba".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I realised the .eba file generated in the blog-assembly module
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being pushed into my local repo. I've made some changes to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pom.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in ARIES-198 to fix this. So now it uses antrun to create the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .eba
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact and the build-helper-maven-plugin to push the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local repo. I needed to add NOTICE and LICENSE files to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .eba for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ianal plugin in the verify phase to succeed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've not used the build-helper-maven-plugin before. Do you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will work with the maven-release-plugin to push the eba
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifacts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when we do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a release? If so, then I should look at using the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AriesTrader.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the result is that the eba will not be available in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repository.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the differences is that AriesTrader first generates a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-assembly-plugin and then copies this to an eba. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jar will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> managed by maven and IIUC it should be deployable as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "application"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an extension of "jar" rather than "eba". If that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps delivery of an application jar is an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1st
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. Unfortunately I haven't actually setup my equinox
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assembly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deploy the eba yet - it still deploys all of the individual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bundles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using the maven-assembly-plugin likely the preferred approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term. Perhaps we could copy the artifact to .eba and use the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build-helper-maven-plugin to remove the .jar artifact from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control and add the .eba one?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can give this a try for AriesTrader. If it doesn't work out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there anything wrong with the approach I mentioned earlier of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jar artifacts rather than the eba artifacts? Will the current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support only look at *.eba archives?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to see at least those included:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * blueprint
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jmx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jndi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * transaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think applications are really usable yet and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looked at JPA yet, so can't tell about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The transaction component is functional and we've been using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unchanged since a long time in ServiceMix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any particular concerns with it ? (I'm not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declarative transactions for blueprint, note).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 04:19, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the response (even while on vacation!) ... and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be the release manager. Your response helps me get a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> picture
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the plans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was really just interested in the general objectives and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hadn't been discussed yet. To get the release out in Feb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> delivered next week. I'm afraid the hill might be a little
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steep to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climb that quickly but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The more communication the better. It's important to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and planning along the same lines (or understand quickly if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences of opinion). Knowing that you are thinking of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release candidate next week means that we should be getting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restrictive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on new content to avoid any unpleasant surprises.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any strong opinions on what should be in or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general it doesn't make sense to release things that aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functional.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment I'm not sure what those are - but I suspect not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components are fully functional yet (for example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joe, sorry I started setting myself up tuesday but am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacation until monday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I think the 0.1 release should serve to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right now in the respectable form the ASF requires. So
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haves'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are to get the build in the right shape to create the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files that are acceptable to the IPMC. I think each main
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> area of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code deserves at least a README to describe what's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is the first release there are likely a few unknowns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> w.r.t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timing I hope/expect to get the release out this in feb.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular JIRAs or other issues you feel should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. I'd like to rename the current JIRA version 1.0 to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues for 0.1 appropriately and issues not for 0.1 to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.2 version. WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 February 2010 15:39, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are your current thoughts and goals regarding the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target dates?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it would be good if you could summarize your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps on a page in the wiki that we can keep updated as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of particular interest would be the content that we would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first release (clarifying what we consider "must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have" from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have"), the current status of that content, target dates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the process that we plan to use to generate the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12 February 2010 09:39, Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <gn...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great, thanks a lot. Let us know if you need any help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess if you take some notes, it would be interesting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the wiki.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Certainly will. It's been a while since I did one and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed quite a bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:32, Jeremy Hughes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <hu...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Kevan, thanks. I volunteer to be release manager.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 February 2010 16:38, Kevan Miller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ke...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like the consensus is for a release with all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version number. Best to start with a simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versioning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I don't view a 0.1 blueprint release as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Showing the ability to generate an Apache release is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the community. Would definitely like to see this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We'll need a release manager. Any volunteers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --kevan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Joe
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Joe
>>
>
--
Joe
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aries release
Posted by Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org>.
On 2 March 2010 19:30, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks David.
>
> After I sent my last note I recalled another place in AriesTrader with
> hard-coded versions. The APPLICATION.MF files used for the two EBAs that
> are generated includes the bundle version - which is a little different than
> the maven version. Where the maven version is currently
> 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT the bundle version generated using the
> maven-bundle-plugin is 1.0.0.incubating-SNAPSHOT to conform to the OSGi
> version scheme.
Are you saying we couldn't quite generate the APPLICATION.MF using
resource filtering because the ${version} will be
1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT instead of 1.0.0.incubating-SNAPSHOT?
>
> There are two things which might make this a moot point:
> 1) If the eba-maven-plugin is enhanced to generate the APPLICATION.MF then
> we can use that to resolve the issue.
Yes I agree eba-maven-plugin should pull the same trick as the
maven-bundle-plugin to ensure version numbers fit with the OSGi spec
(whatever the logic for that conversion is).
> 2) Even though this is an issue with SNAPSHOTs I imagine it isn't an issue
> with a non-snapshot release because it won't container the "-XXX"
> qualification.
I think it'll continue to be an issue while we are using the -incubating suffix.
>
> Optionally, I could also just omit the APPLICATION.MF altogether from the
> AriesTrader EBAs since I understand that it is not required. That might be
> quickest fix for now.
Do all the AriesTrader .eba files contain, by value, all the bundles
they need? And, is that set transitively closed? If so then you
certainly could remove the APPLICATION.MF. Or is it using the OBR
resolver integration code to pull in bundles from a repository?
>
> Joe
>
> David Jencks wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 10:33 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>
>>> I agree that we should make a global change to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>> first. Why wouldn't we just do that now?
>>
>> I started doing some experiments here...
>>
>> running
>> mvn versions:set -DnewVersion=0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>
>> in root and parent upgrades everything maven knows about just fine.
>> However there's (1) mentioned below and also a hardcoded version in two
>> blueprint-itests.
>>
>> According to
>>
>> http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxexam/Configuration+using+Maven+Plugin
>>
>> we should be able to replace the hardcoded versions with
>> .versionAsInProject()
>>
>> if we run the maven-paxexam-plugin on the project. However I can't get it
>> to work yet.
>>>
>>> Just a heads-up on some other issues related to versions in samples.
>>> There are two potential problems that I am aware of:
>>>
>>> 1) For both Blog-Sample and AriesTrader there are hard-coded version
>>> references in the Equinox assembly config.ini file which are used to specify
>>> the bundle jars that are to be started for the assembly. Naturally, the
>>> versions of the aries bundles in this file won't be updated by the
>>> maven-release-plugin. I'm not sure of a good solution for this beyond just
>>> manually changing the config.ini files prior to creating a release
>>> candidate.
>>
>> I think we might be able to work around this by putting the config.ini
>> files in src/main/resources/filtered-resources and defining a bunch of
>> properties in an appropriate pom and using them for the version imports of
>> the aries subproject dependencyManagement imports in the samples root pom.
>> I haven't tried this yet...
>>
>>>
>>> 2) I think there is still an unresolved issue related to Blog-Sample and
>>> how we might be able to demonstrate a bundle upgrade scenario. I'm not
>>> sure if this capability is included yet in Blog-Sample - so it might still
>>> be a non-issue at the moment. However, we had some discussion on this a
>>> week ago or so related to how we might be able to include multiple versions
>>> of components in the sample so that an upgrade scenario could be
>>> demonstrated. If that is still a goal for the 0.1 release we will need to
>>> come up with some solution.
>>
>> no ideas from me on this one :-)
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>>
>>> David Jencks wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think everything is ok.... I think (at least with dryRun=true) that
>>>> the release plugin builds the project first as-is and checks that signing
>>>> etc works.
>>>> I added autoVersionSubmodules=true in the root parent pom which will
>>>> make things work more smoothly :-)
>>>> I really recommend changing the version to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>> first, I'm happy to do this if you want.
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> scratch that. I'm working thru this:
>>>>> http://maven.apache.org/developers/release/apache-release.html as
>>>>> there's several steps I haven't done.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2 March 2010 16:17, Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2 March 2010 02:28, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've done most of what I think is needed for aries to be basically
>>>>>>> releasable. There are some bits left and possibly stuff I've missed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. legal file review. There are a bunch of NOTICE files that claim
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> work from osgi is included. Really? license and notice files are
>>>>>>> supposed
>>>>>>> to apply to what is actually in an artifact or checkout. Are some of
>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>> source files copied from an osgi source? Also all the legal files
>>>>>>> that end
>>>>>>> up in binary artifacts need to be checked. Also we need to run the
>>>>>>> rat
>>>>>>> plugin: this should be configured in the default pom. Not sure if I
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> get to this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. actually using the eba-maven-plugn. I'm not entirely sure how to
>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>> sure that an eba is working so I didn't mess with this. I think the
>>>>>>> plugin
>>>>>>> itself is working well enough to use though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. ordering dependencies and dependency management. I find it
>>>>>>> convenient to
>>>>>>> have these alphabetized so I can find what I'm looking for, but I
>>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>>> done this in most poms. I'm not sure why there isn't a usable tool
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> doing this but I haven't found one. Dull but useful...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. It would probably be a really good idea to run mvn
>>>>>>> dependency:analyze and
>>>>>>> look carefully at the results. The results from this can require
>>>>>>> interpretation so its best if someone who is very familiar with how
>>>>>>> the code
>>>>>>> works does this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4. before a release all snapshots need to be resolved to released
>>>>>>> versions.
>>>>>>> I don't know if there are any snapshots.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To summarize what I've tried to do:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. default-parent has dependency management for the basic osgi
>>>>>>> dependencies
>>>>>>> that all projects are pretty sure to use including the pax stuff used
>>>>>>> mostly
>>>>>>> for testing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. each subproject has legal files in its checkout root
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. each subproject has an scm element in its pom, but no others do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4. each subproject has dependency management for everything included
>>>>>>> in it.
>>>>>>> In addition, it has its subprojects listed in dependency management.
>>>>>>> (this
>>>>>>> is bent slightly for the samples). This means that
>>>>>>> (a) modules in a subproject don't need to include versions for use of
>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>> modules
>>>>>>> (b) you can get dependency management for all the modules in a
>>>>>>> subproject
>>>>>>> by depending on the subproject pom with scope import. (see the
>>>>>>> samples pom
>>>>>>> for an example).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5. As a result of (4), modules don't have any versions in any
>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>> elements.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Release is going to involve...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> releasing the parent
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In trunk/parent I tried:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mvn -DdryRun=true release:prepare -Papache-release
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Providing 0.1-incubating for the release version
>>>>>> Defaulting to parent-0.1-incubating for the SCM release tag
>>>>>> Defaulting to 0.2-incubating-SNAPSHOT for the new development version
>>>>>>
>>>>>> then when it builds the 'Top Parent POM' it outputs this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building Aries :: Top Parent POM
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] task-segment: [clean, verify]
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [clean:clean]
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: classpath.resource.loader.class =>
>>>>>> 'org.codehaus.plexus.velocity.ContextClassLoaderResourceLoader'.
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: velocimacro.messages.on => 'false'.
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.loader => 'classpath'.
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.manager.logwhenfound =>
>>>>>> 'false'.
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [remote-resources:process {execution: default}]
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [site:attach-descriptor]
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [assembly:single {execution: source-release-assembly}]
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added,
>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already added,
>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already added,
>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building zip:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> C:\cygwin\home\hughesj\oss\aries\trunk\parent\target\parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-source-release.zip
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added,
>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already added,
>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already added,
>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Preparing source:jar
>>>>>> [INFO] [WARNING] Removing: jar from forked lifecycle, to prevent
>>>>>> recursive invocation.
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] No goals needed for project - skipping
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [source:jar {execution: attach-sources}]
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [javadoc:jar {execution: attach-javadocs}]
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Not executing Javadoc as the project is not a Java
>>>>>> classpath-capable package
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [gpg:sign {execution: default}]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so it seems to be outputting 1.0.0 artifacts still. Any ideas?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then stops at the gpg stage. I thought it would prompt me for my key
>>>>>> passphrase at this point. Do I need gpg-agent to be running?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> updating the parent version wherever it is used (all subproject
>>>>>>> parents)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> releasing the subprojects in an appropriate order and updating their
>>>>>>> versions wherever they are used.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It might be worthwhile changing the pom version to
>>>>>>> 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>>>>> (or something similar, 0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT?) before doing this
>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>> then the versions plugin can be used to update use of a subproject to
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> newly released version of what it uses. Going from
>>>>>>> 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT to 0.1-incubating won't allow this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As noted in the "root" pom, don't try to release the root pom and
>>>>>>> don't try
>>>>>>> release everything at once from the root pom.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 11:55 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I started looking into cleaning up the build, and of course it is
>>>>>>>> taking
>>>>>>>> longer than I expected.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm seriously hampered by failing tests in a fresh checkout.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are some projects in application that stop compiling if you
>>>>>>>> alphabetize the dependencies. It looks like osgi 3 artifacts are
>>>>>>>> getting on
>>>>>>>> the maven classpath before osgi 4.2 artifacts. Adding exclusions to
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> dependencies seems to fix it if you can figure out where the out of
>>>>>>>> date
>>>>>>>> jars are coming from.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The build is already much closer to a multi-release model than a
>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>> release model.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've diffed what I have so far and attached it to ARIES-173. It
>>>>>>>> includes
>>>>>>>> scm info and a lot of version corrections. Due to the failing tests
>>>>>>>> I'm not
>>>>>>>> too comfortable committing it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is anyone else seeing test failures locally?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Lin Sun wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It 'd be great if you are willing to fix these build issues, since
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> just went through a big release in Geronimo. :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I know the maven release plugin isn't friendly to use some cases,
>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>> it is best we get these resolved to make our release process a bit
>>>>>>>>> easier.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> EBA plugin would be a very nice add-on, if it comes in time with
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lin
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, David Jencks
>>>>>>>>> <da...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to understand the problems you see better, but I do
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> the maven background you guys have, any chance you could explain
>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> problems are, why they are problems and the solution at some
>>>>>>>>>>> point?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The biggest immediate problem is that without correct svn info you
>>>>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>> a release with the release plugin. I'm pretty sure the way its
>>>>>>>>>> set up
>>>>>>>>>> now,
>>>>>>>>>> when you try, the tag will be under maven's apache pom, not aries.
>>>>>>>>>> (you'll
>>>>>>>>>> fail unless you happen to be a maven committer too). You
>>>>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>> want to try to do a release without the release plugin.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Organizationally there's no way that for instance blueprint,
>>>>>>>>>> application,
>>>>>>>>>> and samples should always be released in synchrony. Any time two
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>> happen to be ready for release at the same time it will be purely
>>>>>>>>>> accidental. Right now everyone wants to get a milestone out the
>>>>>>>>>> door,
>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>> looking at the different projects their state of completion is
>>>>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>> wildly different. A decision to release all of them at once is
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> based in
>>>>>>>>>> any way on them being equally complete. I'm suggesting that since
>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>> fixes are needed anyway, why not set up a maintainable structure
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>> continue to work beyond this publicity release. The benefit to
>>>>>>>>>> users is
>>>>>>>>>> that aries will be able to release bits in a timely fashion;
>>>>>>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> entire project will never be in a releasable state at once. (I'm
>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>> exaggerating a little bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What got me looking at this at all is what look like wild
>>>>>>>>>> gyrations that
>>>>>>>>>> don't really use maven properly to get an .eba (or some artifact)
>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> door. This might be ok for one release but (a) I think this can
>>>>>>>>>> be done
>>>>>>>>>> directly with the assembly plugin short term and (b) an
>>>>>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin
>>>>>>>>>> seems like the obvious more long term solution.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to fix the build and probably work on an eba plugin,
>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>>> be sure this is ok with everyone first.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>> Alasdair
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 23 Feb 2010, at 18:18, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This discussion got me worried enough to take a look at the
>>>>>>>>>>>> aries
>>>>>>>>>>>> build.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I'm even more worried.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> While it might feel good to try to push out a release as fast as
>>>>>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd prefer to see a sustainable build system in place first. So
>>>>>>>>>>>> far
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> looks to me as if aries is going to be a bunch of loosely
>>>>>>>>>>>> coupled
>>>>>>>>>>>> subprojects. Building them all at once is not going to work for
>>>>>>>>>>>> long.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> think we should recognize that and put that in the build system
>>>>>>>>>>>> now.
>>>>>>>>>>>> To me
>>>>>>>>>>>> this means:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. a parent pom that isn't at the root of the svn trunk.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. each subproject has pom info sufficient so it can be released
>>>>>>>>>>>> (mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>> svn info) (right now this is completely missing everywhere as
>>>>>>>>>>>> far as
>>>>>>>>>>>> I can
>>>>>>>>>>>> see, which will result in ares getting tagged into svn as part
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> apache
>>>>>>>>>>>> pom)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We can still have a "fake" pom that builds everything, but it
>>>>>>>>>>>> won't be
>>>>>>>>>>>> part of any release procedure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Having separately released subprojects does not prevent having a
>>>>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>>> vote on all the releases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd suggest a few other pom tweaks such as using resources and
>>>>>>>>>>>> filtered-resources to distinguish when filtering is called for.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In addition relevant to this particular bit of the thread, we
>>>>>>>>>>>> need an
>>>>>>>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin to assemble ebas. Getting this into a first
>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>> be a great idea IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If there's general agreement I can spend some time playing with
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>> and possibly working on the eba plugin.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 February 2010 13:09, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to see us release the sample applications but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least one complication. Both Blog Sample and AriesTrader
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EBAs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using different techniques - but both leverage the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-antrun-plugin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally produce a file of type "eba".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I realised the .eba file generated in the blog-assembly module
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being pushed into my local repo. I've made some changes to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pom.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in ARIES-198 to fix this. So now it uses antrun to create the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .eba
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact and the build-helper-maven-plugin to push the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local repo. I needed to add NOTICE and LICENSE files to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .eba for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ianal plugin in the verify phase to succeed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've not used the build-helper-maven-plugin before. Do you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> know if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will work with the maven-release-plugin to push the eba
>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifacts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> when we do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a release? If so, then I should look at using the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> AriesTrader.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the result is that the eba will not be available in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repository.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the differences is that AriesTrader first generates a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-assembly-plugin and then copies this to an eba. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jar will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> managed by maven and IIUC it should be deployable as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "application"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an extension of "jar" rather than "eba". If that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps delivery of an application jar is an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1st
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. Unfortunately I haven't actually setup my equinox
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assembly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deploy the eba yet - it still deploys all of the individual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bundles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using the maven-assembly-plugin likely the preferred approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term. Perhaps we could copy the artifact to .eba and use the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build-helper-maven-plugin to remove the .jar artifact from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control and add the .eba one?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can give this a try for AriesTrader. If it doesn't work out
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there anything wrong with the approach I mentioned earlier of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> using the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> jar artifacts rather than the eba artifacts? Will the current
>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>>>>>>> support only look at *.eba archives?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to see at least those included:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * blueprint
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jmx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jndi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * transaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think applications are really usable yet and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looked at JPA yet, so can't tell about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The transaction component is functional and we've been using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unchanged since a long time in ServiceMix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any particular concerns with it ? (I'm not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declarative transactions for blueprint, note).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 04:19, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the response (even while on vacation!) ... and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be the release manager. Your response helps me get a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> picture
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the plans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was really just interested in the general objectives and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hadn't been discussed yet. To get the release out in Feb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> delivered next week. I'm afraid the hill might be a little
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steep to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climb that quickly but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The more communication the better. It's important to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and planning along the same lines (or understand quickly if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences of opinion). Knowing that you are thinking of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release candidate next week means that we should be getting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restrictive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on new content to avoid any unpleasant surprises.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any strong opinions on what should be in or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general it doesn't make sense to release things that aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functional.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment I'm not sure what those are - but I suspect not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components are fully functional yet (for example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joe, sorry I started setting myself up tuesday but am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacation until monday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I think the 0.1 release should serve to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right now in the respectable form the ASF requires. So
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haves'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are to get the build in the right shape to create the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files that are acceptable to the IPMC. I think each main
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> area of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code deserves at least a README to describe what's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is the first release there are likely a few unknowns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> w.r.t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timing I hope/expect to get the release out this in feb.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular JIRAs or other issues you feel should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. I'd like to rename the current JIRA version 1.0 to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues for 0.1 appropriately and issues not for 0.1 to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.2 version. WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 February 2010 15:39, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are your current thoughts and goals regarding the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target dates?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it would be good if you could summarize your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps on a page in the wiki that we can keep updated as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of particular interest would be the content that we would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first release (clarifying what we consider "must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have" from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have"), the current status of that content, target dates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the process that we plan to use to generate the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12 February 2010 09:39, Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <gn...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great, thanks a lot. Let us know if you need any help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess if you take some notes, it would be interesting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the wiki.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Certainly will. It's been a while since I did one and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed quite a bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:32, Jeremy Hughes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <hu...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Kevan, thanks. I volunteer to be release manager.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 February 2010 16:38, Kevan Miller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ke...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like the consensus is for a release with all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version number. Best to start with a simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versioning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I don't view a 0.1 blueprint release as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Showing the ability to generate an Apache release is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the community. Would definitely like to see this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We'll need a release manager. Any volunteers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --kevan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Joe
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Joe
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aries release
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Mar 2, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
> On 2 March 2010 19:06, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 10:33 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>
>>> I agree that we should make a global change to 0.1-incubating-
>>> SNAPSHOT
>>> first. Why wouldn't we just do that now?
>>
>> I started doing some experiments here...
>>
>> running
>> mvn versions:set -DnewVersion=0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>
>> in root and parent upgrades everything maven knows about just fine.
>> However
>> there's (1) mentioned below and also a hardcoded version in two
>> blueprint-itests.
>>
>> According to
>>
>> http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxexam/Configuration+using+Maven
>> +Plugin
>>
>> we should be able to replace the hardcoded versions with
>> .versionAsInProject()
>>
>> if we run the maven-paxexam-plugin on the project. However I can't
>> get it to
>> work yet.
>>>
>>> Just a heads-up on some other issues related to versions in
>>> samples. There
>>> are two potential problems that I am aware of:
>>>
>>> 1) For both Blog-Sample and AriesTrader there are hard-coded
>>> version
>>> references in the Equinox assembly config.ini file which are used
>>> to specify
>>> the bundle jars that are to be started for the assembly.
>>> Naturally, the
>>> versions of the aries bundles in this file won't be updated by the
>>> maven-release-plugin. I'm not sure of a good solution for this
>>> beyond just
>>> manually changing the config.ini files prior to creating a release
>>> candidate.
>>
>> I think we might be able to work around this by putting the
>> config.ini files
>> in src/main/resources/filtered-resources and defining a bunch of
>> properties
>> in an appropriate pom and using them for the version imports of the
>> aries
>> subproject dependencyManagement imports in the samples root pom. I
>> haven't
>> tried this yet...
>>
>
> I'm learning ... just looked up filtering resources and this would
> definitely seem to fit the bill.
>
>>>
>>> 2) I think there is still an unresolved issue related to Blog-
>>> Sample and
>>> how we might be able to demonstrate a bundle upgrade scenario.
>>> I'm not
>>> sure if this capability is included yet in Blog-Sample - so it
>>> might still
>>> be a non-issue at the moment. However, we had some discussion on
>>> this a
>>> week ago or so related to how we might be able to include multiple
>>> versions
>>> of components in the sample so that an upgrade scenario could be
>>> demonstrated. If that is still a goal for the 0.1 release we will
>>> need to
>>> come up with some solution.
>>
>> no ideas from me on this one :-)
>
> I had a feeling Zoe was doing something in this area when she created
> the blog-persistence_1.0.0 directory but it's empty.
>
> Zoe, with ARIES-199 did you check in the code for the JPA persistence
> impl then back it out because it went in over the JDBC one. I was
> wondering what your plan for adding in the JPA persistence impl again
> - in the blog-persistence_1.0.0 dir perhaps which is empty right now.
>
> I think the Blog sample bundles should not be marked 0.1. The sample
> will show how a blog-persistence bundle at version 1.1.0 can be used
> to update an .eba that only uses blog-persistence at version 1.0. So
> these bundles need to be versioned independently of Aries itself. As
> part of the release of the blog sample there should be a .eba artifact
> containing the blog bundles including the blog persistence bundle at
> version 1.0.0. There should be an artifact that contains the blog
> persistence bundle at version 1.1.0 - but that isn't a .eba - it
> should probably just be a zip.
>
> So I think the maven-release-plugin needs to pass over the Blog sample
> bundles and run on the blog assembly project to create a .eba at
> 0.1-incubating containing bundles created from the other modules at
> version 1.0.0 (no incubating). The Apache release process requires
> each released artifact to contain NOTICE, LICENSE and have incubating
> in the artifact's name. Which means we can't release the blog sample
> bundles directly because they need to be at version 1.0.0 and 1.1.0.
We have lots of version segments, cant we show how to replace
0.1.0.incubating
with
0.1.1.incubating?
In any case it looks like we may want to override the
autoVersionSubmodules for at least part of the blog sample. It is a
real pain to release correctly then, though.
thanks
david jencks
>
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>>
>>> David Jencks wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think everything is ok.... I think (at least with dryRun=true)
>>>> that the
>>>> release plugin builds the project first as-is and checks that
>>>> signing etc
>>>> works.
>>>> I added autoVersionSubmodules=true in the root parent pom which
>>>> will make
>>>> things work more smoothly :-)
>>>> I really recommend changing the version to 0.1-incubating-
>>>> SNAPSHOT first,
>>>> I'm happy to do this if you want.
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> scratch that. I'm working thru this:
>>>>> http://maven.apache.org/developers/release/apache-release.html as
>>>>> there's several steps I haven't done.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2 March 2010 16:17, Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2 March 2010 02:28, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've done most of what I think is needed for aries to be
>>>>>>> basically
>>>>>>> releasable. There are some bits left and possibly stuff I've
>>>>>>> missed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. legal file review. There are a bunch of NOTICE files that
>>>>>>> claim
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> work from osgi is included. Really? license and notice files
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> supposed
>>>>>>> to apply to what is actually in an artifact or checkout. Are
>>>>>>> some of
>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>> source files copied from an osgi source? Also all the legal
>>>>>>> files
>>>>>>> that end
>>>>>>> up in binary artifacts need to be checked. Also we need to
>>>>>>> run the
>>>>>>> rat
>>>>>>> plugin: this should be configured in the default pom. Not
>>>>>>> sure if I
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> get to this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. actually using the eba-maven-plugn. I'm not entirely sure
>>>>>>> how to
>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>> sure that an eba is working so I didn't mess with this. I
>>>>>>> think the
>>>>>>> plugin
>>>>>>> itself is working well enough to use though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. ordering dependencies and dependency management. I find it
>>>>>>> convenient to
>>>>>>> have these alphabetized so I can find what I'm looking for,
>>>>>>> but I
>>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>>> done this in most poms. I'm not sure why there isn't a usable
>>>>>>> tool
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> doing this but I haven't found one. Dull but useful...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. It would probably be a really good idea to run mvn
>>>>>>> dependency:analyze and
>>>>>>> look carefully at the results. The results from this can
>>>>>>> require
>>>>>>> interpretation so its best if someone who is very familiar
>>>>>>> with how
>>>>>>> the code
>>>>>>> works does this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4. before a release all snapshots need to be resolved to
>>>>>>> released
>>>>>>> versions.
>>>>>>> I don't know if there are any snapshots.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To summarize what I've tried to do:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. default-parent has dependency management for the basic osgi
>>>>>>> dependencies
>>>>>>> that all projects are pretty sure to use including the pax
>>>>>>> stuff used
>>>>>>> mostly
>>>>>>> for testing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. each subproject has legal files in its checkout root
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. each subproject has an scm element in its pom, but no
>>>>>>> others do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4. each subproject has dependency management for everything
>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>> in it.
>>>>>>> In addition, it has its subprojects listed in dependency
>>>>>>> management.
>>>>>>> (this
>>>>>>> is bent slightly for the samples). This means that
>>>>>>> (a) modules in a subproject don't need to include versions for
>>>>>>> use of
>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>> modules
>>>>>>> (b) you can get dependency management for all the modules in a
>>>>>>> subproject
>>>>>>> by depending on the subproject pom with scope import. (see the
>>>>>>> samples pom
>>>>>>> for an example).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5. As a result of (4), modules don't have any versions in any
>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>> elements.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Release is going to involve...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> releasing the parent
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In trunk/parent I tried:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mvn -DdryRun=true release:prepare -Papache-release
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Providing 0.1-incubating for the release version
>>>>>> Defaulting to parent-0.1-incubating for the SCM release tag
>>>>>> Defaulting to 0.2-incubating-SNAPSHOT for the new development
>>>>>> version
>>>>>>
>>>>>> then when it builds the 'Top Parent POM' it outputs this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building Aries :: Top Parent POM
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] task-segment: [clean, verify]
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [clean:clean]
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: classpath.resource.loader.class
>>>>>> =>
>>>>>> 'org.codehaus.plexus.velocity.ContextClassLoaderResourceLoader'.
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: velocimacro.messages.on =>
>>>>>> 'false'.
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.loader => 'classpath'.
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.manager.logwhenfound =>
>>>>>> 'false'.
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [remote-resources:process {execution: default}]
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [site:attach-descriptor]
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [assembly:single {execution: source-release-
>>>>>> assembly}]
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added,
>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already
>>>>>> added,
>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already
>>>>>> added,
>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building zip:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> C:\cygwin\home\hughesj\oss\aries\trunk\parent\target
>>>>>> \parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-source-release.zip
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added,
>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already
>>>>>> added,
>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already
>>>>>> added,
>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Preparing source:jar
>>>>>> [INFO] [WARNING] Removing: jar from forked lifecycle, to prevent
>>>>>> recursive invocation.
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] No goals needed for project - skipping
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [source:jar {execution: attach-sources}]
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [javadoc:jar {execution: attach-javadocs}]
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Not executing Javadoc as the project is not a Java
>>>>>> classpath-capable package
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [gpg:sign {execution: default}]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so it seems to be outputting 1.0.0 artifacts still. Any ideas?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then stops at the gpg stage. I thought it would prompt me for
>>>>>> my key
>>>>>> passphrase at this point. Do I need gpg-agent to be running?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> updating the parent version wherever it is used (all subproject
>>>>>>> parents)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> releasing the subprojects in an appropriate order and updating
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>> versions wherever they are used.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It might be worthwhile changing the pom version to
>>>>>>> 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>>>>> (or something similar, 0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT?) before doing
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>> then the versions plugin can be used to update use of a
>>>>>>> subproject to
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> newly released version of what it uses. Going from
>>>>>>> 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT to 0.1-incubating won't allow this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As noted in the "root" pom, don't try to release the root pom
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> don't try
>>>>>>> release everything at once from the root pom.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 11:55 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I started looking into cleaning up the build, and of course
>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>> taking
>>>>>>>> longer than I expected.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm seriously hampered by failing tests in a fresh checkout.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are some projects in application that stop compiling if
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> alphabetize the dependencies. It looks like osgi 3 artifacts
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> getting on
>>>>>>>> the maven classpath before osgi 4.2 artifacts. Adding
>>>>>>>> exclusions to
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> dependencies seems to fix it if you can figure out where the
>>>>>>>> out of
>>>>>>>> date
>>>>>>>> jars are coming from.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The build is already much closer to a multi-release model
>>>>>>>> than a
>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>> release model.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've diffed what I have so far and attached it to ARIES-173.
>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>> includes
>>>>>>>> scm info and a lot of version corrections. Due to the
>>>>>>>> failing tests
>>>>>>>> I'm not
>>>>>>>> too comfortable committing it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is anyone else seeing test failures locally?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Lin Sun wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It 'd be great if you are willing to fix these build issues,
>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> just went through a big release in Geronimo. :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I know the maven release plugin isn't friendly to use some
>>>>>>>>> cases, so
>>>>>>>>> it is best we get these resolved to make our release process
>>>>>>>>> a bit
>>>>>>>>> easier.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> EBA plugin would be a very nice add-on, if it comes in time
>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lin
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, David Jencks
>>>>>>>>> <da...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to understand the problems you see better,
>>>>>>>>>>> but I do
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> the maven background you guys have, any chance you could
>>>>>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> problems are, why they are problems and the solution at some
>>>>>>>>>>> point?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The biggest immediate problem is that without correct svn
>>>>>>>>>> info you
>>>>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>> a release with the release plugin. I'm pretty sure the way
>>>>>>>>>> its set
>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>> now,
>>>>>>>>>> when you try, the tag will be under maven's apache pom, not
>>>>>>>>>> aries.
>>>>>>>>>> (you'll
>>>>>>>>>> fail unless you happen to be a maven committer too). You
>>>>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>> want to try to do a release without the release plugin.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Organizationally there's no way that for instance blueprint,
>>>>>>>>>> application,
>>>>>>>>>> and samples should always be released in synchrony. Any
>>>>>>>>>> time two
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>> happen to be ready for release at the same time it will be
>>>>>>>>>> purely
>>>>>>>>>> accidental. Right now everyone wants to get a milestone
>>>>>>>>>> out the
>>>>>>>>>> door,
>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>> looking at the different projects their state of completion
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>> wildly different. A decision to release all of them at
>>>>>>>>>> once is not
>>>>>>>>>> based in
>>>>>>>>>> any way on them being equally complete. I'm suggesting
>>>>>>>>>> that since
>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>> fixes are needed anyway, why not set up a maintainable
>>>>>>>>>> structure
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>> continue to work beyond this publicity release. The
>>>>>>>>>> benefit to
>>>>>>>>>> users is
>>>>>>>>>> that aries will be able to release bits in a timely fashion;
>>>>>>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> entire project will never be in a releasable state at once.
>>>>>>>>>> (I'm
>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>> exaggerating a little bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What got me looking at this at all is what look like wild
>>>>>>>>>> gyrations
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> don't really use maven properly to get an .eba (or some
>>>>>>>>>> artifact)
>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> door. This might be ok for one release but (a) I think
>>>>>>>>>> this can be
>>>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>>>> directly with the assembly plugin short term and (b) an
>>>>>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin
>>>>>>>>>> seems like the obvious more long term solution.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to fix the build and probably work on an eba
>>>>>>>>>> plugin,
>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>>> be sure this is ok with everyone first.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>> Alasdair
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 23 Feb 2010, at 18:18, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This discussion got me worried enough to take a look at
>>>>>>>>>>>> the aries
>>>>>>>>>>>> build.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I'm even more worried.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> While it might feel good to try to push out a release as
>>>>>>>>>>>> fast as
>>>>>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd prefer to see a sustainable build system in place
>>>>>>>>>>>> first. So
>>>>>>>>>>>> far
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> looks to me as if aries is going to be a bunch of loosely
>>>>>>>>>>>> coupled
>>>>>>>>>>>> subprojects. Building them all at once is not going to
>>>>>>>>>>>> work for
>>>>>>>>>>>> long.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> think we should recognize that and put that in the build
>>>>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>>>> now.
>>>>>>>>>>>> To me
>>>>>>>>>>>> this means:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. a parent pom that isn't at the root of the svn trunk.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. each subproject has pom info sufficient so it can be
>>>>>>>>>>>> released
>>>>>>>>>>>> (mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>> svn info) (right now this is completely missing
>>>>>>>>>>>> everywhere as
>>>>>>>>>>>> far as
>>>>>>>>>>>> I can
>>>>>>>>>>>> see, which will result in ares getting tagged into svn as
>>>>>>>>>>>> part of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> apache
>>>>>>>>>>>> pom)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We can still have a "fake" pom that builds everything,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but it
>>>>>>>>>>>> won't be
>>>>>>>>>>>> part of any release procedure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Having separately released subprojects does not prevent
>>>>>>>>>>>> having a
>>>>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>>> vote on all the releases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd suggest a few other pom tweaks such as using
>>>>>>>>>>>> resources and
>>>>>>>>>>>> filtered-resources to distinguish when filtering is
>>>>>>>>>>>> called for.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In addition relevant to this particular bit of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> thread, we
>>>>>>>>>>>> need an
>>>>>>>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin to assemble ebas. Getting this into a
>>>>>>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>> be a great idea IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If there's general agreement I can spend some time
>>>>>>>>>>>> playing with
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>> and possibly working on the eba plugin.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 February 2010 13:09, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to see us release the sample
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least one complication. Both Blog Sample and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AriesTrader
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EBAs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using different techniques - but both leverage the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-antrun-plugin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally produce a file of type "eba".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I realised the .eba file generated in the blog-assembly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> module
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being pushed into my local repo. I've made some changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pom.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in ARIES-198 to fix this. So now it uses antrun to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .eba
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact and the build-helper-maven-plugin to push the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local repo. I needed to add NOTICE and LICENSE files to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .eba for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ianal plugin in the verify phase to succeed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've not used the build-helper-maven-plugin before. Do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you know
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will work with the maven-release-plugin to push the eba
>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifacts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> when we do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a release? If so, then I should look at using the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> AriesTrader.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the result is that the eba will not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repository.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the differences is that AriesTrader first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generates a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-assembly-plugin and then copies this to an eba.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The jar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> managed by maven and IIUC it should be deployable as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "application"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an extension of "jar" rather than "eba". If that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps delivery of an application jar is an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1st
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. Unfortunately I haven't actually setup my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equinox
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assembly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deploy the eba yet - it still deploys all of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bundles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using the maven-assembly-plugin likely the preferred
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term. Perhaps we could copy the artifact to .eba and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build-helper-maven-plugin to remove the .jar artifact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control and add the .eba one?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can give this a try for AriesTrader. If it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> work out -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there anything wrong with the approach I mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>> earlier of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> using the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> jar artifacts rather than the eba artifacts? Will the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>>>>>>> support only look at *.eba archives?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to see at least those included:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * blueprint
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jmx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jndi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * transaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think applications are really usable yet and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looked at JPA yet, so can't tell about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The transaction component is functional and we've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unchanged since a long time in ServiceMix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any particular concerns with it ? (I'm not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declarative transactions for blueprint, note).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 04:19, Joe Bohn <joebohn@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the response (even while on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacation!) ... and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be the release manager. Your response helps me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> picture
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the plans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was really just interested in the general
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objectives and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hadn't been discussed yet. To get the release out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Feb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> delivered next week. I'm afraid the hill might be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steep to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climb that quickly but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The more communication the better. It's important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and planning along the same lines (or understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quickly if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences of opinion). Knowing that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release candidate next week means that we should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restrictive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on new content to avoid any unpleasant surprises.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any strong opinions on what should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in or out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general it doesn't make sense to release things that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functional.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment I'm not sure what those are - but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspect not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components are fully functional yet (for example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joe, sorry I started setting myself up tuesday
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacation until monday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I think the 0.1 release should serve to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right now in the respectable form the ASF requires.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haves'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are to get the build in the right shape to create the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files that are acceptable to the IPMC. I think each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> area of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code deserves at least a README to describe what's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is the first release there are likely a few
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unknowns -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> w.r.t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timing I hope/expect to get the release out this in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feb. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular JIRAs or other issues you feel should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. I'd like to rename the current JIRA version
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.0 to 0.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues for 0.1 appropriately and issues not for 0.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.2 version. WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 February 2010 15:39, Joe Bohn <joebohn@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are your current thoughts and goals regarding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target dates?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it would be good if you could summarize your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps on a page in the wiki that we can keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> updated as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of particular interest would be the content that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first release (clarifying what we consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "must have"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have"), the current status of that content, target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the process that we plan to use to generate the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12 February 2010 09:39, Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <gn...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great, thanks a lot. Let us know if you need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess if you take some notes, it would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the wiki.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Certainly will. It's been a while since I did one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed quite a bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:32, Jeremy Hughes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <hu...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Kevan, thanks. I volunteer to be release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manager.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 February 2010 16:38, Kevan Miller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ke...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like the consensus is for a release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version number. Best to start with a simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versioning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I don't view a 0.1 blueprint
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Showing the ability to generate an Apache
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the community. Would definitely like to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We'll need a release manager. Any volunteers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --kevan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Joe
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aries release
Posted by Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org>.
On 2 March 2010 19:06, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 2, 2010, at 10:33 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>
>> I agree that we should make a global change to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>> first. Why wouldn't we just do that now?
>
> I started doing some experiments here...
>
> running
> mvn versions:set -DnewVersion=0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>
> in root and parent upgrades everything maven knows about just fine. However
> there's (1) mentioned below and also a hardcoded version in two
> blueprint-itests.
>
> According to
>
> http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxexam/Configuration+using+Maven+Plugin
>
> we should be able to replace the hardcoded versions with
> .versionAsInProject()
>
> if we run the maven-paxexam-plugin on the project. However I can't get it to
> work yet.
>>
>> Just a heads-up on some other issues related to versions in samples. There
>> are two potential problems that I am aware of:
>>
>> 1) For both Blog-Sample and AriesTrader there are hard-coded version
>> references in the Equinox assembly config.ini file which are used to specify
>> the bundle jars that are to be started for the assembly. Naturally, the
>> versions of the aries bundles in this file won't be updated by the
>> maven-release-plugin. I'm not sure of a good solution for this beyond just
>> manually changing the config.ini files prior to creating a release
>> candidate.
>
> I think we might be able to work around this by putting the config.ini files
> in src/main/resources/filtered-resources and defining a bunch of properties
> in an appropriate pom and using them for the version imports of the aries
> subproject dependencyManagement imports in the samples root pom. I haven't
> tried this yet...
>
I'm learning ... just looked up filtering resources and this would
definitely seem to fit the bill.
>>
>> 2) I think there is still an unresolved issue related to Blog-Sample and
>> how we might be able to demonstrate a bundle upgrade scenario. I'm not
>> sure if this capability is included yet in Blog-Sample - so it might still
>> be a non-issue at the moment. However, we had some discussion on this a
>> week ago or so related to how we might be able to include multiple versions
>> of components in the sample so that an upgrade scenario could be
>> demonstrated. If that is still a goal for the 0.1 release we will need to
>> come up with some solution.
>
> no ideas from me on this one :-)
I had a feeling Zoe was doing something in this area when she created
the blog-persistence_1.0.0 directory but it's empty.
Zoe, with ARIES-199 did you check in the code for the JPA persistence
impl then back it out because it went in over the JDBC one. I was
wondering what your plan for adding in the JPA persistence impl again
- in the blog-persistence_1.0.0 dir perhaps which is empty right now.
I think the Blog sample bundles should not be marked 0.1. The sample
will show how a blog-persistence bundle at version 1.1.0 can be used
to update an .eba that only uses blog-persistence at version 1.0. So
these bundles need to be versioned independently of Aries itself. As
part of the release of the blog sample there should be a .eba artifact
containing the blog bundles including the blog persistence bundle at
version 1.0.0. There should be an artifact that contains the blog
persistence bundle at version 1.1.0 - but that isn't a .eba - it
should probably just be a zip.
So I think the maven-release-plugin needs to pass over the Blog sample
bundles and run on the blog assembly project to create a .eba at
0.1-incubating containing bundles created from the other modules at
version 1.0.0 (no incubating). The Apache release process requires
each released artifact to contain NOTICE, LICENSE and have incubating
in the artifact's name. Which means we can't release the blog sample
bundles directly because they need to be at version 1.0.0 and 1.1.0.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>> David Jencks wrote:
>>>
>>> I think everything is ok.... I think (at least with dryRun=true) that the
>>> release plugin builds the project first as-is and checks that signing etc
>>> works.
>>> I added autoVersionSubmodules=true in the root parent pom which will make
>>> things work more smoothly :-)
>>> I really recommend changing the version to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT first,
>>> I'm happy to do this if you want.
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>
>>>> scratch that. I'm working thru this:
>>>> http://maven.apache.org/developers/release/apache-release.html as
>>>> there's several steps I haven't done.
>>>>
>>>> On 2 March 2010 16:17, Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2 March 2010 02:28, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've done most of what I think is needed for aries to be basically
>>>>>> releasable. There are some bits left and possibly stuff I've missed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. legal file review. There are a bunch of NOTICE files that claim
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> work from osgi is included. Really? license and notice files are
>>>>>> supposed
>>>>>> to apply to what is actually in an artifact or checkout. Are some of
>>>>>> our
>>>>>> source files copied from an osgi source? Also all the legal files
>>>>>> that end
>>>>>> up in binary artifacts need to be checked. Also we need to run the
>>>>>> rat
>>>>>> plugin: this should be configured in the default pom. Not sure if I
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> get to this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. actually using the eba-maven-plugn. I'm not entirely sure how to
>>>>>> make
>>>>>> sure that an eba is working so I didn't mess with this. I think the
>>>>>> plugin
>>>>>> itself is working well enough to use though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. ordering dependencies and dependency management. I find it
>>>>>> convenient to
>>>>>> have these alphabetized so I can find what I'm looking for, but I
>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>> done this in most poms. I'm not sure why there isn't a usable tool
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> doing this but I haven't found one. Dull but useful...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. It would probably be a really good idea to run mvn
>>>>>> dependency:analyze and
>>>>>> look carefully at the results. The results from this can require
>>>>>> interpretation so its best if someone who is very familiar with how
>>>>>> the code
>>>>>> works does this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4. before a release all snapshots need to be resolved to released
>>>>>> versions.
>>>>>> I don't know if there are any snapshots.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To summarize what I've tried to do:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. default-parent has dependency management for the basic osgi
>>>>>> dependencies
>>>>>> that all projects are pretty sure to use including the pax stuff used
>>>>>> mostly
>>>>>> for testing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. each subproject has legal files in its checkout root
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. each subproject has an scm element in its pom, but no others do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4. each subproject has dependency management for everything included
>>>>>> in it.
>>>>>> In addition, it has its subprojects listed in dependency management.
>>>>>> (this
>>>>>> is bent slightly for the samples). This means that
>>>>>> (a) modules in a subproject don't need to include versions for use of
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> modules
>>>>>> (b) you can get dependency management for all the modules in a
>>>>>> subproject
>>>>>> by depending on the subproject pom with scope import. (see the
>>>>>> samples pom
>>>>>> for an example).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5. As a result of (4), modules don't have any versions in any
>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>> elements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Release is going to involve...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> releasing the parent
>>>>>
>>>>> In trunk/parent I tried:
>>>>>
>>>>> mvn -DdryRun=true release:prepare -Papache-release
>>>>>
>>>>> Providing 0.1-incubating for the release version
>>>>> Defaulting to parent-0.1-incubating for the SCM release tag
>>>>> Defaulting to 0.2-incubating-SNAPSHOT for the new development version
>>>>>
>>>>> then when it builds the 'Top Parent POM' it outputs this:
>>>>>
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building Aries :: Top Parent POM
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] task-segment: [clean, verify]
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [clean:clean]
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: classpath.resource.loader.class =>
>>>>> 'org.codehaus.plexus.velocity.ContextClassLoaderResourceLoader'.
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: velocimacro.messages.on => 'false'.
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.loader => 'classpath'.
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.manager.logwhenfound =>
>>>>> 'false'.
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [remote-resources:process {execution: default}]
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [site:attach-descriptor]
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [assembly:single {execution: source-release-assembly}]
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added, skipping
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already added,
>>>>> skipping
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already added,
>>>>> skipping
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building zip:
>>>>>
>>>>> C:\cygwin\home\hughesj\oss\aries\trunk\parent\target\parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-source-release.zip
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added, skipping
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already added,
>>>>> skipping
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already added,
>>>>> skipping
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Preparing source:jar
>>>>> [INFO] [WARNING] Removing: jar from forked lifecycle, to prevent
>>>>> recursive invocation.
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] No goals needed for project - skipping
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [source:jar {execution: attach-sources}]
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [javadoc:jar {execution: attach-javadocs}]
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Not executing Javadoc as the project is not a Java
>>>>> classpath-capable package
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [gpg:sign {execution: default}]
>>>>>
>>>>> so it seems to be outputting 1.0.0 artifacts still. Any ideas?
>>>>>
>>>>> Then stops at the gpg stage. I thought it would prompt me for my key
>>>>> passphrase at this point. Do I need gpg-agent to be running?
>>>>>
>>>>>> updating the parent version wherever it is used (all subproject
>>>>>> parents)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> releasing the subprojects in an appropriate order and updating their
>>>>>> versions wherever they are used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It might be worthwhile changing the pom version to
>>>>>> 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>>>> (or something similar, 0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT?) before doing this
>>>>>> because
>>>>>> then the versions plugin can be used to update use of a subproject to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> newly released version of what it uses. Going from
>>>>>> 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT to 0.1-incubating won't allow this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As noted in the "root" pom, don't try to release the root pom and
>>>>>> don't try
>>>>>> release everything at once from the root pom.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 11:55 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I started looking into cleaning up the build, and of course it is
>>>>>>> taking
>>>>>>> longer than I expected.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm seriously hampered by failing tests in a fresh checkout.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are some projects in application that stop compiling if you
>>>>>>> alphabetize the dependencies. It looks like osgi 3 artifacts are
>>>>>>> getting on
>>>>>>> the maven classpath before osgi 4.2 artifacts. Adding exclusions to
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> dependencies seems to fix it if you can figure out where the out of
>>>>>>> date
>>>>>>> jars are coming from.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The build is already much closer to a multi-release model than a
>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>> release model.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've diffed what I have so far and attached it to ARIES-173. It
>>>>>>> includes
>>>>>>> scm info and a lot of version corrections. Due to the failing tests
>>>>>>> I'm not
>>>>>>> too comfortable committing it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is anyone else seeing test failures locally?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Lin Sun wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It 'd be great if you are willing to fix these build issues, since
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> just went through a big release in Geronimo. :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know the maven release plugin isn't friendly to use some cases, so
>>>>>>>> it is best we get these resolved to make our release process a bit
>>>>>>>> easier.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> EBA plugin would be a very nice add-on, if it comes in time with the
>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lin
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, David Jencks
>>>>>>>> <da...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I would like to understand the problems you see better, but I do
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> the maven background you guys have, any chance you could explain
>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> problems are, why they are problems and the solution at some
>>>>>>>>>> point?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The biggest immediate problem is that without correct svn info you
>>>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>> a release with the release plugin. I'm pretty sure the way its set
>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>> now,
>>>>>>>>> when you try, the tag will be under maven's apache pom, not aries.
>>>>>>>>> (you'll
>>>>>>>>> fail unless you happen to be a maven committer too). You definitely
>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>> want to try to do a release without the release plugin.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Organizationally there's no way that for instance blueprint,
>>>>>>>>> application,
>>>>>>>>> and samples should always be released in synchrony. Any time two
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>> happen to be ready for release at the same time it will be purely
>>>>>>>>> accidental. Right now everyone wants to get a milestone out the
>>>>>>>>> door,
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> looking at the different projects their state of completion is
>>>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>> wildly different. A decision to release all of them at once is not
>>>>>>>>> based in
>>>>>>>>> any way on them being equally complete. I'm suggesting that since
>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>> fixes are needed anyway, why not set up a maintainable structure
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>> continue to work beyond this publicity release. The benefit to
>>>>>>>>> users is
>>>>>>>>> that aries will be able to release bits in a timely fashion;
>>>>>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> entire project will never be in a releasable state at once. (I'm
>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>> exaggerating a little bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What got me looking at this at all is what look like wild gyrations
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> don't really use maven properly to get an .eba (or some artifact)
>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> door. This might be ok for one release but (a) I think this can be
>>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>>> directly with the assembly plugin short term and (b) an
>>>>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin
>>>>>>>>> seems like the obvious more long term solution.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to fix the build and probably work on an eba plugin,
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>> be sure this is ok with everyone first.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>> Alasdair
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 23 Feb 2010, at 18:18, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This discussion got me worried enough to take a look at the aries
>>>>>>>>>>> build.
>>>>>>>>>>> Now I'm even more worried.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> While it might feel good to try to push out a release as fast as
>>>>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd prefer to see a sustainable build system in place first. So
>>>>>>>>>>> far
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> looks to me as if aries is going to be a bunch of loosely coupled
>>>>>>>>>>> subprojects. Building them all at once is not going to work for
>>>>>>>>>>> long.
>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>> think we should recognize that and put that in the build system
>>>>>>>>>>> now.
>>>>>>>>>>> To me
>>>>>>>>>>> this means:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. a parent pom that isn't at the root of the svn trunk.
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. each subproject has pom info sufficient so it can be released
>>>>>>>>>>> (mostly
>>>>>>>>>>> svn info) (right now this is completely missing everywhere as
>>>>>>>>>>> far as
>>>>>>>>>>> I can
>>>>>>>>>>> see, which will result in ares getting tagged into svn as part of
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> apache
>>>>>>>>>>> pom)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We can still have a "fake" pom that builds everything, but it
>>>>>>>>>>> won't be
>>>>>>>>>>> part of any release procedure.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Having separately released subprojects does not prevent having a
>>>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>> vote on all the releases.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd suggest a few other pom tweaks such as using resources and
>>>>>>>>>>> filtered-resources to distinguish when filtering is called for.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In addition relevant to this particular bit of the thread, we
>>>>>>>>>>> need an
>>>>>>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin to assemble ebas. Getting this into a first
>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> be a great idea IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If there's general agreement I can spend some time playing with
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>> and possibly working on the eba plugin.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 February 2010 13:09, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to see us release the sample applications but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least one complication. Both Blog Sample and AriesTrader
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EBAs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using different techniques - but both leverage the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-antrun-plugin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally produce a file of type "eba".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I realised the .eba file generated in the blog-assembly module
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> being pushed into my local repo. I've made some changes to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pom.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in ARIES-198 to fix this. So now it uses antrun to create the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> .eba
>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact and the build-helper-maven-plugin to push the artifact
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> local repo. I needed to add NOTICE and LICENSE files to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> .eba for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ianal plugin in the verify phase to succeed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've not used the build-helper-maven-plugin before. Do you know
>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> will work with the maven-release-plugin to push the eba
>>>>>>>>>>>> artifacts
>>>>>>>>>>>> when we do
>>>>>>>>>>>> a release? If so, then I should look at using the same
>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism for
>>>>>>>>>>>> AriesTrader.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the result is that the eba will not be available in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repository.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the differences is that AriesTrader first generates a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-assembly-plugin and then copies this to an eba. The jar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> managed by maven and IIUC it should be deployable as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "application"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an extension of "jar" rather than "eba". If that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps delivery of an application jar is an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1st
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. Unfortunately I haven't actually setup my equinox
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assembly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deploy the eba yet - it still deploys all of the individual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bundles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using the maven-assembly-plugin likely the preferred approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>> term. Perhaps we could copy the artifact to .eba and use the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> build-helper-maven-plugin to remove the .jar artifact from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven
>>>>>>>>>>>>> control and add the .eba one?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I can give this a try for AriesTrader. If it doesn't work out -
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> there anything wrong with the approach I mentioned earlier of
>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>> using the
>>>>>>>>>>>> jar artifacts rather than the eba artifacts? Will the current
>>>>>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>>>>>> support only look at *.eba archives?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to see at least those included:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * blueprint
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jmx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jndi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * transaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think applications are really usable yet and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looked at JPA yet, so can't tell about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The transaction component is functional and we've been using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unchanged since a long time in ServiceMix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any particular concerns with it ? (I'm not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declarative transactions for blueprint, note).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 04:19, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the response (even while on vacation!) ... and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be the release manager. Your response helps me get a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> picture
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the plans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was really just interested in the general objectives and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hadn't been discussed yet. To get the release out in Feb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> delivered next week. I'm afraid the hill might be a little
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steep to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climb that quickly but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The more communication the better. It's important to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and planning along the same lines (or understand quickly if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences of opinion). Knowing that you are thinking of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release candidate next week means that we should be getting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restrictive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on new content to avoid any unpleasant surprises.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any strong opinions on what should be in or out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general it doesn't make sense to release things that aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functional.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment I'm not sure what those are - but I suspect not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components are fully functional yet (for example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joe, sorry I started setting myself up tuesday but am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacation until monday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I think the 0.1 release should serve to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right now in the respectable form the ASF requires. So
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haves'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are to get the build in the right shape to create the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files that are acceptable to the IPMC. I think each main
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> area of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code deserves at least a README to describe what's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is the first release there are likely a few unknowns -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> w.r.t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timing I hope/expect to get the release out this in feb. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular JIRAs or other issues you feel should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. I'd like to rename the current JIRA version 1.0 to 0.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues for 0.1 appropriately and issues not for 0.1 to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.2 version. WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 February 2010 15:39, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are your current thoughts and goals regarding the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target dates?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it would be good if you could summarize your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps on a page in the wiki that we can keep updated as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of particular interest would be the content that we would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first release (clarifying what we consider "must have"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have"), the current status of that content, target dates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the process that we plan to use to generate the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12 February 2010 09:39, Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <gn...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great, thanks a lot. Let us know if you need any help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess if you take some notes, it would be interesting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the wiki.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Certainly will. It's been a while since I did one and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed quite a bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:32, Jeremy Hughes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <hu...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Kevan, thanks. I volunteer to be release manager.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 February 2010 16:38, Kevan Miller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ke...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like the consensus is for a release with all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version number. Best to start with a simple versioning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I don't view a 0.1 blueprint release as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Showing the ability to generate an Apache release is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the community. Would definitely like to see this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We'll need a release manager. Any volunteers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --kevan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Joe
>
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aries release
Posted by Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org>.
On 2 March 2010 17:44, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think everything is ok.... I think (at least with dryRun=true) that the
> release plugin builds the project first as-is and checks that signing etc
> works.
>
> I added autoVersionSubmodules=true in the root parent pom which will make
> things work more smoothly :-)
If that means the maven-release-plugin won't ask what version number
to use for the child modules of the one being released then this is
good and just what we want for most modules. I think we might need to
do something special with the modules representing the blog sample
bundles (as Joe mentions in another email).
>
> I really recommend changing the version to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT first,
> I'm happy to do this if you want.
I agree, that would give the maven-bundle-plugin less to do and one
less moving part would be fine with me. Thanks.
>
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Mar 2, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>
>> scratch that. I'm working thru this:
>> http://maven.apache.org/developers/release/apache-release.html as
>> there's several steps I haven't done.
>>
>> On 2 March 2010 16:17, Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2 March 2010 02:28, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I've done most of what I think is needed for aries to be basically
>>>> releasable. There are some bits left and possibly stuff I've missed.
>>>>
>>>> 1. legal file review. There are a bunch of NOTICE files that claim that
>>>> work from osgi is included. Really? license and notice files are
>>>> supposed
>>>> to apply to what is actually in an artifact or checkout. Are some of
>>>> our
>>>> source files copied from an osgi source? Also all the legal files that
>>>> end
>>>> up in binary artifacts need to be checked. Also we need to run the rat
>>>> plugin: this should be configured in the default pom. Not sure if I
>>>> will
>>>> get to this.
>>>>
>>>> 2. actually using the eba-maven-plugn. I'm not entirely sure how to
>>>> make
>>>> sure that an eba is working so I didn't mess with this. I think the
>>>> plugin
>>>> itself is working well enough to use though.
>>>>
>>>> 2. ordering dependencies and dependency management. I find it
>>>> convenient to
>>>> have these alphabetized so I can find what I'm looking for, but I
>>>> haven't
>>>> done this in most poms. I'm not sure why there isn't a usable tool for
>>>> doing this but I haven't found one. Dull but useful...
>>>>
>>>> 3. It would probably be a really good idea to run mvn dependency:analyze
>>>> and
>>>> look carefully at the results. The results from this can require
>>>> interpretation so its best if someone who is very familiar with how the
>>>> code
>>>> works does this.
>>>>
>>>> 4. before a release all snapshots need to be resolved to released
>>>> versions.
>>>> I don't know if there are any snapshots.
>>>>
>>>> To summarize what I've tried to do:
>>>>
>>>> 1. default-parent has dependency management for the basic osgi
>>>> dependencies
>>>> that all projects are pretty sure to use including the pax stuff used
>>>> mostly
>>>> for testing.
>>>>
>>>> 2. each subproject has legal files in its checkout root
>>>>
>>>> 3. each subproject has an scm element in its pom, but no others do.
>>>>
>>>> 4. each subproject has dependency management for everything included in
>>>> it.
>>>> In addition, it has its subprojects listed in dependency management.
>>>> (this
>>>> is bent slightly for the samples). This means that
>>>> (a) modules in a subproject don't need to include versions for use of
>>>> other
>>>> modules
>>>> (b) you can get dependency management for all the modules in a
>>>> subproject
>>>> by depending on the subproject pom with scope import. (see the samples
>>>> pom
>>>> for an example).
>>>>
>>>> 5. As a result of (4), modules don't have any versions in any dependency
>>>> elements.
>>>>
>>>> Release is going to involve...
>>>>
>>>> releasing the parent
>>>
>>> In trunk/parent I tried:
>>>
>>> mvn -DdryRun=true release:prepare -Papache-release
>>>
>>> Providing 0.1-incubating for the release version
>>> Defaulting to parent-0.1-incubating for the SCM release tag
>>> Defaulting to 0.2-incubating-SNAPSHOT for the new development version
>>>
>>> then when it builds the 'Top Parent POM' it outputs this:
>>>
>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building Aries :: Top Parent POM
>>> [INFO] [INFO] task-segment: [clean, verify]
>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> [INFO] [INFO] [clean:clean]
>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: classpath.resource.loader.class =>
>>> 'org.codehaus.plexus.velocity.ContextClassLoaderResourceLoader'.
>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: velocimacro.messages.on => 'false'.
>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.loader => 'classpath'.
>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.manager.logwhenfound => 'false'.
>>> [INFO] [INFO] [remote-resources:process {execution: default}]
>>> [INFO] [INFO] [site:attach-descriptor]
>>> [INFO] [INFO] [assembly:single {execution: source-release-assembly}]
>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added, skipping
>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already added,
>>> skipping
>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already added,
>>> skipping
>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building zip:
>>>
>>> C:\cygwin\home\hughesj\oss\aries\trunk\parent\target\parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-source-release.zip
>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added, skipping
>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already added,
>>> skipping
>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already added,
>>> skipping
>>> [INFO] [INFO] Preparing source:jar
>>> [INFO] [WARNING] Removing: jar from forked lifecycle, to prevent
>>> recursive invocation.
>>> [INFO] [INFO] No goals needed for project - skipping
>>> [INFO] [INFO] [source:jar {execution: attach-sources}]
>>> [INFO] [INFO] [javadoc:jar {execution: attach-javadocs}]
>>> [INFO] [INFO] Not executing Javadoc as the project is not a Java
>>> classpath-capable package
>>> [INFO] [INFO] [gpg:sign {execution: default}]
>>>
>>> so it seems to be outputting 1.0.0 artifacts still. Any ideas?
>>>
>>> Then stops at the gpg stage. I thought it would prompt me for my key
>>> passphrase at this point. Do I need gpg-agent to be running?
>>>
>>>> updating the parent version wherever it is used (all subproject parents)
>>>>
>>>> releasing the subprojects in an appropriate order and updating their
>>>> versions wherever they are used.
>>>>
>>>> It might be worthwhile changing the pom version to
>>>> 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>> (or something similar, 0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT?) before doing this
>>>> because
>>>> then the versions plugin can be used to update use of a subproject to
>>>> the
>>>> newly released version of what it uses. Going from
>>>> 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT to 0.1-incubating won't allow this.
>>>>
>>>> As noted in the "root" pom, don't try to release the root pom and don't
>>>> try
>>>> release everything at once from the root pom.
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 11:55 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I started looking into cleaning up the build, and of course it is
>>>>> taking
>>>>> longer than I expected.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm seriously hampered by failing tests in a fresh checkout.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are some projects in application that stop compiling if you
>>>>> alphabetize the dependencies. It looks like osgi 3 artifacts are
>>>>> getting on
>>>>> the maven classpath before osgi 4.2 artifacts. Adding exclusions to
>>>>> the
>>>>> dependencies seems to fix it if you can figure out where the out of
>>>>> date
>>>>> jars are coming from.
>>>>>
>>>>> The build is already much closer to a multi-release model than a single
>>>>> release model.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've diffed what I have so far and attached it to ARIES-173. It
>>>>> includes
>>>>> scm info and a lot of version corrections. Due to the failing tests
>>>>> I'm not
>>>>> too comfortable committing it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is anyone else seeing test failures locally?
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Lin Sun wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It 'd be great if you are willing to fix these build issues, since you
>>>>>> just went through a big release in Geronimo. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know the maven release plugin isn't friendly to use some cases, so
>>>>>> it is best we get these resolved to make our release process a bit
>>>>>> easier.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> EBA plugin would be a very nice add-on, if it comes in time with the
>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lin
>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would like to understand the problems you see better, but I do not
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> the maven background you guys have, any chance you could explain
>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> problems are, why they are problems and the solution at some point?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The biggest immediate problem is that without correct svn info you
>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>> a release with the release plugin. I'm pretty sure the way its set
>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>> now,
>>>>>>> when you try, the tag will be under maven's apache pom, not aries.
>>>>>>> (you'll
>>>>>>> fail unless you happen to be a maven committer too). You definitely
>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>> want to try to do a release without the release plugin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Organizationally there's no way that for instance blueprint,
>>>>>>> application,
>>>>>>> and samples should always be released in synchrony. Any time two of
>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>> happen to be ready for release at the same time it will be purely
>>>>>>> accidental. Right now everyone wants to get a milestone out the
>>>>>>> door,
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> looking at the different projects their state of completion is pretty
>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>> wildly different. A decision to release all of them at once is not
>>>>>>> based in
>>>>>>> any way on them being equally complete. I'm suggesting that since
>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>> fixes are needed anyway, why not set up a maintainable structure that
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> continue to work beyond this publicity release. The benefit to users
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> that aries will be able to release bits in a timely fashion;
>>>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> entire project will never be in a releasable state at once. (I'm only
>>>>>>> exaggerating a little bit :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What got me looking at this at all is what look like wild gyrations
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> don't really use maven properly to get an .eba (or some artifact) out
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> door. This might be ok for one release but (a) I think this can be
>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>> directly with the assembly plugin short term and (b) an
>>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin
>>>>>>> seems like the obvious more long term solution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm willing to fix the build and probably work on an eba plugin, but
>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>> be sure this is ok with everyone first.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>> Alasdair
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 23 Feb 2010, at 18:18, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This discussion got me worried enough to take a look at the aries
>>>>>>>>> build.
>>>>>>>>> Now I'm even more worried.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> While it might feel good to try to push out a release as fast as
>>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>> I'd prefer to see a sustainable build system in place first. So
>>>>>>>>> far
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> looks to me as if aries is going to be a bunch of loosely coupled
>>>>>>>>> subprojects. Building them all at once is not going to work for
>>>>>>>>> long.
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> think we should recognize that and put that in the build system
>>>>>>>>> now.
>>>>>>>>> To me
>>>>>>>>> this means:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. a parent pom that isn't at the root of the svn trunk.
>>>>>>>>> 2. each subproject has pom info sufficient so it can be released
>>>>>>>>> (mostly
>>>>>>>>> svn info) (right now this is completely missing everywhere as far
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> I can
>>>>>>>>> see, which will result in ares getting tagged into svn as part of
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> apache
>>>>>>>>> pom)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We can still have a "fake" pom that builds everything, but it won't
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> part of any release procedure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Having separately released subprojects does not prevent having a
>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>> vote on all the releases.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd suggest a few other pom tweaks such as using resources and
>>>>>>>>> filtered-resources to distinguish when filtering is called for.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In addition relevant to this particular bit of the thread, we need
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin to assemble ebas. Getting this into a first
>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> be a great idea IMO.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If there's general agreement I can spend some time playing with the
>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>> and possibly working on the eba plugin.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 February 2010 13:09, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to see us release the sample applications but I
>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>>>>> at least one complication. Both Blog Sample and AriesTrader
>>>>>>>>>>>> generate
>>>>>>>>>>>> EBAs
>>>>>>>>>>>> using different techniques - but both leverage the
>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-antrun-plugin
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> finally produce a file of type "eba".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I realised the .eba file generated in the blog-assembly module
>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>>>>>>> being pushed into my local repo. I've made some changes to the
>>>>>>>>>>> pom.xml
>>>>>>>>>>> in ARIES-198 to fix this. So now it uses antrun to create the
>>>>>>>>>>> .eba
>>>>>>>>>>> artifact and the build-helper-maven-plugin to push the artifact
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> local repo. I needed to add NOTICE and LICENSE files to the .eba
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> the ianal plugin in the verify phase to succeed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've not used the build-helper-maven-plugin before. Do you know
>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> will work with the maven-release-plugin to push the eba artifacts
>>>>>>>>>> when we do
>>>>>>>>>> a release? If so, then I should look at using the same mechanism
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> AriesTrader.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the result is that the eba will not be available in a
>>>>>>>>>>>> maven
>>>>>>>>>>>> repository.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the differences is that AriesTrader first generates a jar
>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-assembly-plugin and then copies this to an eba. The jar
>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> managed by maven and IIUC it should be deployable as an
>>>>>>>>>>>> "application"
>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>> with an extension of "jar" rather than "eba". If that is
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps delivery of an application jar is an acceptable approach
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1st
>>>>>>>>>>>> release. Unfortunately I haven't actually setup my equinox
>>>>>>>>>>>> assembly
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> deploy the eba yet - it still deploys all of the individual
>>>>>>>>>>>> bundles.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Using the maven-assembly-plugin likely the preferred approach
>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>> term. Perhaps we could copy the artifact to .eba and use the
>>>>>>>>>>> build-helper-maven-plugin to remove the .jar artifact from maven
>>>>>>>>>>> control and add the .eba one?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can give this a try for AriesTrader. If it doesn't work out -
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> there anything wrong with the approach I mentioned earlier of just
>>>>>>>>>> using the
>>>>>>>>>> jar artifacts rather than the eba artifacts? Will the current
>>>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>>>> support only look at *.eba archives?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to see at least those included:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * blueprint
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jmx
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jndi
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * transaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think applications are really usable yet and I haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>> looked at JPA yet, so can't tell about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The transaction component is functional and we've been using it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unchanged since a long time in ServiceMix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any particular concerns with it ? (I'm not talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> declarative transactions for blueprint, note).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 04:19, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the response (even while on vacation!) ... and for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be the release manager. Your response helps me get a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> picture
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the plans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was really just interested in the general objectives and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hadn't been discussed yet. To get the release out in Feb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> delivered next week. I'm afraid the hill might be a little
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steep to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climb that quickly but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The more communication the better. It's important to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and planning along the same lines (or understand quickly if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences of opinion). Knowing that you are thinking of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release candidate next week means that we should be getting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restrictive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on new content to avoid any unpleasant surprises.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any strong opinions on what should be in or out -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general it doesn't make sense to release things that aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functional.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment I'm not sure what those are - but I suspect not all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components are fully functional yet (for example transaction).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joe, sorry I started setting myself up tuesday but am now
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacation until monday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I think the 0.1 release should serve to get what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right now in the respectable form the ASF requires. So 'must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haves'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are to get the build in the right shape to create the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files that are acceptable to the IPMC. I think each main area
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code deserves at least a README to describe what's possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is the first release there are likely a few unknowns -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> w.r.t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timing I hope/expect to get the release out this in feb. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular JIRAs or other issues you feel should be included
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. I'd like to rename the current JIRA version 1.0 to 0.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues for 0.1 appropriately and issues not for 0.1 to target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.2 version. WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 February 2010 15:39, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are your current thoughts and goals regarding the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target dates?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it would be good if you could summarize your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps on a page in the wiki that we can keep updated as we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of particular interest would be the content that we would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first release (clarifying what we consider "must have"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have"), the current status of that content, target dates for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the process that we plan to use to generate the release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12 February 2010 09:39, Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <gn...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great, thanks a lot. Let us know if you need any help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess if you take some notes, it would be interesting to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the wiki.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Certainly will. It's been a while since I did one and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed quite a bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:32, Jeremy Hughes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <hu...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Kevan, thanks. I volunteer to be release manager.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 February 2010 16:38, Kevan Miller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ke...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like the consensus is for a release with all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version number. Best to start with a simple versioning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I don't view a 0.1 blueprint release as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Showing the ability to generate an Apache release is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the community. Would definitely like to see this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We'll need a release manager. Any volunteers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --kevan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aries release
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>.
Thanks David.
After I sent my last note I recalled another place in AriesTrader with
hard-coded versions. The APPLICATION.MF files used for the two EBAs
that are generated includes the bundle version - which is a little
different than the maven version. Where the maven version is currently
1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT the bundle version generated using the
maven-bundle-plugin is 1.0.0.incubating-SNAPSHOT to conform to the OSGi
version scheme.
There are two things which might make this a moot point:
1) If the eba-maven-plugin is enhanced to generate the APPLICATION.MF
then we can use that to resolve the issue.
2) Even though this is an issue with SNAPSHOTs I imagine it isn't an
issue with a non-snapshot release because it won't container the "-XXX"
qualification.
Optionally, I could also just omit the APPLICATION.MF altogether from
the AriesTrader EBAs since I understand that it is not required. That
might be quickest fix for now.
Joe
David Jencks wrote:
>
> On Mar 2, 2010, at 10:33 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>
>> I agree that we should make a global change to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>> first. Why wouldn't we just do that now?
>
> I started doing some experiments here...
>
> running
> mvn versions:set -DnewVersion=0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>
> in root and parent upgrades everything maven knows about just fine.
> However there's (1) mentioned below and also a hardcoded version in two
> blueprint-itests.
>
> According to
>
> http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxexam/Configuration+using+Maven+Plugin
>
> we should be able to replace the hardcoded versions with
> .versionAsInProject()
>
> if we run the maven-paxexam-plugin on the project. However I can't get
> it to work yet.
>>
>> Just a heads-up on some other issues related to versions in samples.
>> There are two potential problems that I am aware of:
>>
>> 1) For both Blog-Sample and AriesTrader there are hard-coded version
>> references in the Equinox assembly config.ini file which are used to
>> specify the bundle jars that are to be started for the assembly.
>> Naturally, the versions of the aries bundles in this file won't be
>> updated by the maven-release-plugin. I'm not sure of a good solution
>> for this beyond just manually changing the config.ini files prior to
>> creating a release candidate.
>
> I think we might be able to work around this by putting the config.ini
> files in src/main/resources/filtered-resources and defining a bunch of
> properties in an appropriate pom and using them for the version imports
> of the aries subproject dependencyManagement imports in the samples root
> pom. I haven't tried this yet...
>
>>
>> 2) I think there is still an unresolved issue related to Blog-Sample
>> and how we might be able to demonstrate a bundle upgrade scenario.
>> I'm not sure if this capability is included yet in Blog-Sample - so it
>> might still be a non-issue at the moment. However, we had some
>> discussion on this a week ago or so related to how we might be able to
>> include multiple versions of components in the sample so that an
>> upgrade scenario could be demonstrated. If that is still a goal for
>> the 0.1 release we will need to come up with some solution.
>
> no ideas from me on this one :-)
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>> David Jencks wrote:
>>> I think everything is ok.... I think (at least with dryRun=true) that
>>> the release plugin builds the project first as-is and checks that
>>> signing etc works.
>>> I added autoVersionSubmodules=true in the root parent pom which will
>>> make things work more smoothly :-)
>>> I really recommend changing the version to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>> first, I'm happy to do this if you want.
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>> scratch that. I'm working thru this:
>>>> http://maven.apache.org/developers/release/apache-release.html as
>>>> there's several steps I haven't done.
>>>>
>>>> On 2 March 2010 16:17, Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 2 March 2010 02:28, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I've done most of what I think is needed for aries to be basically
>>>>>> releasable. There are some bits left and possibly stuff I've missed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. legal file review. There are a bunch of NOTICE files that
>>>>>> claim that
>>>>>> work from osgi is included. Really? license and notice files are
>>>>>> supposed
>>>>>> to apply to what is actually in an artifact or checkout. Are some
>>>>>> of our
>>>>>> source files copied from an osgi source? Also all the legal files
>>>>>> that end
>>>>>> up in binary artifacts need to be checked. Also we need to run
>>>>>> the rat
>>>>>> plugin: this should be configured in the default pom. Not sure if
>>>>>> I will
>>>>>> get to this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. actually using the eba-maven-plugn. I'm not entirely sure how
>>>>>> to make
>>>>>> sure that an eba is working so I didn't mess with this. I think
>>>>>> the plugin
>>>>>> itself is working well enough to use though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. ordering dependencies and dependency management. I find it
>>>>>> convenient to
>>>>>> have these alphabetized so I can find what I'm looking for, but I
>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>> done this in most poms. I'm not sure why there isn't a usable
>>>>>> tool for
>>>>>> doing this but I haven't found one. Dull but useful...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. It would probably be a really good idea to run mvn
>>>>>> dependency:analyze and
>>>>>> look carefully at the results. The results from this can require
>>>>>> interpretation so its best if someone who is very familiar with
>>>>>> how the code
>>>>>> works does this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4. before a release all snapshots need to be resolved to released
>>>>>> versions.
>>>>>> I don't know if there are any snapshots.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To summarize what I've tried to do:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. default-parent has dependency management for the basic osgi
>>>>>> dependencies
>>>>>> that all projects are pretty sure to use including the pax stuff
>>>>>> used mostly
>>>>>> for testing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. each subproject has legal files in its checkout root
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. each subproject has an scm element in its pom, but no others do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4. each subproject has dependency management for everything
>>>>>> included in it.
>>>>>> In addition, it has its subprojects listed in dependency
>>>>>> management. (this
>>>>>> is bent slightly for the samples). This means that
>>>>>> (a) modules in a subproject don't need to include versions for use
>>>>>> of other
>>>>>> modules
>>>>>> (b) you can get dependency management for all the modules in a
>>>>>> subproject
>>>>>> by depending on the subproject pom with scope import. (see the
>>>>>> samples pom
>>>>>> for an example).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5. As a result of (4), modules don't have any versions in any
>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>> elements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Release is going to involve...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> releasing the parent
>>>>>
>>>>> In trunk/parent I tried:
>>>>>
>>>>> mvn -DdryRun=true release:prepare -Papache-release
>>>>>
>>>>> Providing 0.1-incubating for the release version
>>>>> Defaulting to parent-0.1-incubating for the SCM release tag
>>>>> Defaulting to 0.2-incubating-SNAPSHOT for the new development version
>>>>>
>>>>> then when it builds the 'Top Parent POM' it outputs this:
>>>>>
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building Aries :: Top Parent POM
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] task-segment: [clean, verify]
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [clean:clean]
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: classpath.resource.loader.class =>
>>>>> 'org.codehaus.plexus.velocity.ContextClassLoaderResourceLoader'.
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: velocimacro.messages.on => 'false'.
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.loader => 'classpath'.
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.manager.logwhenfound =>
>>>>> 'false'.
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [remote-resources:process {execution: default}]
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [site:attach-descriptor]
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [assembly:single {execution: source-release-assembly}]
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added,
>>>>> skipping
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already
>>>>> added, skipping
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already
>>>>> added, skipping
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building zip:
>>>>> C:\cygwin\home\hughesj\oss\aries\trunk\parent\target\parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-source-release.zip
>>>>>
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added,
>>>>> skipping
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already
>>>>> added, skipping
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already
>>>>> added, skipping
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Preparing source:jar
>>>>> [INFO] [WARNING] Removing: jar from forked lifecycle, to prevent
>>>>> recursive invocation.
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] No goals needed for project - skipping
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [source:jar {execution: attach-sources}]
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [javadoc:jar {execution: attach-javadocs}]
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Not executing Javadoc as the project is not a Java
>>>>> classpath-capable package
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [gpg:sign {execution: default}]
>>>>>
>>>>> so it seems to be outputting 1.0.0 artifacts still. Any ideas?
>>>>>
>>>>> Then stops at the gpg stage. I thought it would prompt me for my key
>>>>> passphrase at this point. Do I need gpg-agent to be running?
>>>>>
>>>>>> updating the parent version wherever it is used (all subproject
>>>>>> parents)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> releasing the subprojects in an appropriate order and updating their
>>>>>> versions wherever they are used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It might be worthwhile changing the pom version to
>>>>>> 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>>>> (or something similar, 0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT?) before doing this
>>>>>> because
>>>>>> then the versions plugin can be used to update use of a subproject
>>>>>> to the
>>>>>> newly released version of what it uses. Going from
>>>>>> 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT to 0.1-incubating won't allow this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As noted in the "root" pom, don't try to release the root pom and
>>>>>> don't try
>>>>>> release everything at once from the root pom.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 11:55 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I started looking into cleaning up the build, and of course it is
>>>>>>> taking
>>>>>>> longer than I expected.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm seriously hampered by failing tests in a fresh checkout.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are some projects in application that stop compiling if you
>>>>>>> alphabetize the dependencies. It looks like osgi 3 artifacts are
>>>>>>> getting on
>>>>>>> the maven classpath before osgi 4.2 artifacts. Adding exclusions
>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>> dependencies seems to fix it if you can figure out where the out
>>>>>>> of date
>>>>>>> jars are coming from.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The build is already much closer to a multi-release model than a
>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>> release model.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've diffed what I have so far and attached it to ARIES-173. It
>>>>>>> includes
>>>>>>> scm info and a lot of version corrections. Due to the failing
>>>>>>> tests I'm not
>>>>>>> too comfortable committing it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is anyone else seeing test failures locally?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Lin Sun wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It 'd be great if you are willing to fix these build issues,
>>>>>>>> since you
>>>>>>>> just went through a big release in Geronimo. :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know the maven release plugin isn't friendly to use some
>>>>>>>> cases, so
>>>>>>>> it is best we get these resolved to make our release process a bit
>>>>>>>> easier.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> EBA plugin would be a very nice add-on, if it comes in time with
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lin
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, David Jencks
>>>>>>>> <da...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I would like to understand the problems you see better, but I
>>>>>>>>>> do not
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> the maven background you guys have, any chance you could
>>>>>>>>>> explain what
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> problems are, why they are problems and the solution at some
>>>>>>>>>> point?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The biggest immediate problem is that without correct svn info
>>>>>>>>> you can't
>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>> a release with the release plugin. I'm pretty sure the way its
>>>>>>>>> set up
>>>>>>>>> now,
>>>>>>>>> when you try, the tag will be under maven's apache pom, not aries.
>>>>>>>>> (you'll
>>>>>>>>> fail unless you happen to be a maven committer too). You
>>>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>> want to try to do a release without the release plugin.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Organizationally there's no way that for instance blueprint,
>>>>>>>>> application,
>>>>>>>>> and samples should always be released in synchrony. Any time
>>>>>>>>> two of
>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>> happen to be ready for release at the same time it will be purely
>>>>>>>>> accidental. Right now everyone wants to get a milestone out
>>>>>>>>> the door,
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> looking at the different projects their state of completion is
>>>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>> wildly different. A decision to release all of them at once is
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> based in
>>>>>>>>> any way on them being equally complete. I'm suggesting that
>>>>>>>>> since build
>>>>>>>>> fixes are needed anyway, why not set up a maintainable
>>>>>>>>> structure that
>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>> continue to work beyond this publicity release. The benefit to
>>>>>>>>> users is
>>>>>>>>> that aries will be able to release bits in a timely fashion;
>>>>>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> entire project will never be in a releasable state at once.
>>>>>>>>> (I'm only
>>>>>>>>> exaggerating a little bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What got me looking at this at all is what look like wild
>>>>>>>>> gyrations that
>>>>>>>>> don't really use maven properly to get an .eba (or some
>>>>>>>>> artifact) out
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> door. This might be ok for one release but (a) I think this
>>>>>>>>> can be done
>>>>>>>>> directly with the assembly plugin short term and (b) an
>>>>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin
>>>>>>>>> seems like the obvious more long term solution.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to fix the build and probably work on an eba
>>>>>>>>> plugin, but
>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>> be sure this is ok with everyone first.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>> Alasdair
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 23 Feb 2010, at 18:18, David Jencks
>>>>>>>>>> <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This discussion got me worried enough to take a look at the
>>>>>>>>>>> aries
>>>>>>>>>>> build.
>>>>>>>>>>> Now I'm even more worried.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> While it might feel good to try to push out a release as fast as
>>>>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd prefer to see a sustainable build system in place first.
>>>>>>>>>>> So far
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> looks to me as if aries is going to be a bunch of loosely
>>>>>>>>>>> coupled
>>>>>>>>>>> subprojects. Building them all at once is not going to work
>>>>>>>>>>> for long.
>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>> think we should recognize that and put that in the build
>>>>>>>>>>> system now.
>>>>>>>>>>> To me
>>>>>>>>>>> this means:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. a parent pom that isn't at the root of the svn trunk.
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. each subproject has pom info sufficient so it can be released
>>>>>>>>>>> (mostly
>>>>>>>>>>> svn info) (right now this is completely missing everywhere
>>>>>>>>>>> as far as
>>>>>>>>>>> I can
>>>>>>>>>>> see, which will result in ares getting tagged into svn as
>>>>>>>>>>> part of the
>>>>>>>>>>> apache
>>>>>>>>>>> pom)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We can still have a "fake" pom that builds everything, but it
>>>>>>>>>>> won't be
>>>>>>>>>>> part of any release procedure.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Having separately released subprojects does not prevent having a
>>>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>> vote on all the releases.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd suggest a few other pom tweaks such as using resources and
>>>>>>>>>>> filtered-resources to distinguish when filtering is called for.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In addition relevant to this particular bit of the thread, we
>>>>>>>>>>> need an
>>>>>>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin to assemble ebas. Getting this into a first
>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> be a great idea IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If there's general agreement I can spend some time playing
>>>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>> and possibly working on the eba plugin.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 February 2010 13:09, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to see us release the sample applications
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least one complication. Both Blog Sample and AriesTrader
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EBAs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using different techniques - but both leverage the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-antrun-plugin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally produce a file of type "eba".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I realised the .eba file generated in the blog-assembly module
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> being pushed into my local repo. I've made some changes to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pom.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in ARIES-198 to fix this. So now it uses antrun to create
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the .eba
>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact and the build-helper-maven-plugin to push the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> local repo. I needed to add NOTICE and LICENSE files to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> .eba for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ianal plugin in the verify phase to succeed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've not used the build-helper-maven-plugin before. Do you
>>>>>>>>>>>> know if
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> will work with the maven-release-plugin to push the eba
>>>>>>>>>>>> artifacts
>>>>>>>>>>>> when we do
>>>>>>>>>>>> a release? If so, then I should look at using the same
>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism for
>>>>>>>>>>>> AriesTrader.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the result is that the eba will not be available
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a maven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repository.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the differences is that AriesTrader first generates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a jar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-assembly-plugin and then copies this to an eba. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jar will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> managed by maven and IIUC it should be deployable as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "application"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an extension of "jar" rather than "eba". If that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps delivery of an application jar is an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1st
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. Unfortunately I haven't actually setup my equinox
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assembly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deploy the eba yet - it still deploys all of the individual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bundles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using the maven-assembly-plugin likely the preferred
>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach long
>>>>>>>>>>>>> term. Perhaps we could copy the artifact to .eba and use the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> build-helper-maven-plugin to remove the .jar artifact from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven
>>>>>>>>>>>>> control and add the .eba one?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I can give this a try for AriesTrader. If it doesn't work
>>>>>>>>>>>> out - is
>>>>>>>>>>>> there anything wrong with the approach I mentioned earlier
>>>>>>>>>>>> of just
>>>>>>>>>>>> using the
>>>>>>>>>>>> jar artifacts rather than the eba artifacts? Will the current
>>>>>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>>>>>> support only look at *.eba archives?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to see at least those included:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * blueprint
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jmx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jndi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * transaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think applications are really usable yet and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looked at JPA yet, so can't tell about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The transaction component is functional and we've been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unchanged since a long time in ServiceMix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any particular concerns with it ? (I'm not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declarative transactions for blueprint, note).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 04:19, Joe Bohn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the response (even while on vacation!) ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be the release manager. Your response helps me get a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> picture
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the plans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was really just interested in the general objectives
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and timing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hadn't been discussed yet. To get the release out in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feb means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> delivered next week. I'm afraid the hill might be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steep to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climb that quickly but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The more communication the better. It's important to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and planning along the same lines (or understand quickly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences of opinion). Knowing that you are thinking of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release candidate next week means that we should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restrictive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on new content to avoid any unpleasant surprises.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any strong opinions on what should be in or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general it doesn't make sense to release things that aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functional.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment I'm not sure what those are - but I suspect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not all of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components are fully functional yet (for example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joe, sorry I started setting myself up tuesday but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am now out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacation until monday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I think the 0.1 release should serve to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right now in the respectable form the ASF requires. So
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haves'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are to get the build in the right shape to create the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files that are acceptable to the IPMC. I think each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main area of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code deserves at least a README to describe what's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is the first release there are likely a few
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unknowns -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> w.r.t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timing I hope/expect to get the release out this in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feb. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular JIRAs or other issues you feel should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. I'd like to rename the current JIRA version 1.0 to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues for 0.1 appropriately and issues not for 0.1 to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.2 version. WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 February 2010 15:39, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are your current thoughts and goals regarding the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target dates?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it would be good if you could summarize your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps on a page in the wiki that we can keep updated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of particular interest would be the content that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first release (clarifying what we consider "must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have" from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have"), the current status of that content, target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dates for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the process that we plan to use to generate the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12 February 2010 09:39, Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <gn...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great, thanks a lot. Let us know if you need any help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess if you take some notes, it would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the wiki.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Certainly will. It's been a while since I did one and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed quite a bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:32, Jeremy Hughes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <hu...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Kevan, thanks. I volunteer to be release manager.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 February 2010 16:38, Kevan Miller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ke...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like the consensus is for a release with all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version number. Best to start with a simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versioning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I don't view a 0.1 blueprint release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Showing the ability to generate an Apache release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the community. Would definitely like to see this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We'll need a release manager. Any volunteers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --kevan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Joe
>
>
--
Joe
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aries release
Posted by zoe slattery <zo...@googlemail.com>.
David Jencks wrote:
> I changed the versions to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT (except for some
> blog-sample, see below) and filtered the config.ini files.
>
> I'm still seeing some test failures in jpa-container-itests. I can't
> figure out how these work or why they do or don't fail, I'm hoping
> someone who does can figure out what's wrong.
>
> The blog sample had been changed to use release versions.
Yes - I am still working on getting the JPA persistence implementation
to behave correctly.
> This is not OK for anything that might possibly ever be released. I
> changed them back to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT and the 1.1.0 to
> 0.1.0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT.
I'll try this, however I'd rather get the the sample working first. If
it doesn't work it shouldn't be part of a release and the discussion
about versions will be immaterial :-)
> If the idea is to show how a version upgrade can install a new feature
> I'd expect the new versions to work and to be consistent with any
> likely versions used in the future. I'm not entirely sure what osgi
> version 0.1.0.1-incubating will turn into, hopefully something
> plausible and larger than 0.1-incubating.
>
> If this is not ok for the purposes of the sample and you really need
> something like 1.0.0 and 1.1.0 then we'll have to find a way so that
> this project can be built but never released.
I don't think we do need that. I did it for my convenience whilst
debugging a bigger issue.
> I think that it is possible to configure deployment to a repository
> under samples/blog-sample/target which would work for this purpose.
> However this is unusual and I hope we can avoid it.
>
> Is anyone planning to convert the eba generation to using the new plugin?
I believe so. At the very least the eba generation will move out of the
blog assembly project.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Mar 3, 2010, at 11:00 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 11:06 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 10:33 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree that we should make a global change to
>>>> 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT first. Why wouldn't we just do that now?
>>>
>>> I started doing some experiments here...
>>>
>>> running
>>> mvn versions:set -DnewVersion=0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>
>>> in root and parent upgrades everything maven knows about just fine.
>>> However there's (1) mentioned below and also a hardcoded version in
>>> two blueprint-itests.
>>>
>>> According to
>>>
>>> http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxexam/Configuration+using+Maven+Plugin
>>>
>>> we should be able to replace the hardcoded versions with
>>> .versionAsInProject()
>>>
>>> if we run the maven-paxexam-plugin on the project. However I can't
>>> get it to work yet.
>>
>> I eventually figured enough about how pax-exam works to fix this. I
>> (hopefully temporarily) borrowed some test code from pax exam and
>> entered a patch at http://issues.ops4j.org/browse/PAXEXAM-171. If
>> there are no better ideas or objections I expect to commit it in a
>> few days. I'd guess at this point people might rather wait till
>> after an aries release or pax-exam release, whichever comes first, to
>> move to using the code once it gets in pax-exam?
>>
>>
>> I'm seeing a bunch of test failures later on with the changed
>> version. If I can't figure out what is causing them reasonably
>> quickly I'm going to commit the version change and suggest that
>> someone who understands how the tests work make them
>> version-independent.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Just a heads-up on some other issues related to versions in
>>>> samples. There are two potential problems that I am aware of:
>>>>
>>>> 1) For both Blog-Sample and AriesTrader there are hard-coded
>>>> version references in the Equinox assembly config.ini file which
>>>> are used to specify the bundle jars that are to be started for the
>>>> assembly. Naturally, the versions of the aries bundles in this file
>>>> won't be updated by the maven-release-plugin. I'm not sure of a
>>>> good solution for this beyond just manually changing the config.ini
>>>> files prior to creating a release candidate.
>>>
>>> I think we might be able to work around this by putting the
>>> config.ini files in src/main/resources/filtered-resources and
>>> defining a bunch of properties in an appropriate pom and using them
>>> for the version imports of the aries subproject dependencyManagement
>>> imports in the samples root pom. I haven't tried this yet...
>>>
>>
>> I think I can do this bit fairly soon...
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> 2) I think there is still an unresolved issue related to
>>>> Blog-Sample and how we might be able to demonstrate a bundle
>>>> upgrade scenario. I'm not sure if this capability is included yet
>>>> in Blog-Sample - so it might still be a non-issue at the moment.
>>>> However, we had some discussion on this a week ago or so related to
>>>> how we might be able to include multiple versions of components in
>>>> the sample so that an upgrade scenario could be demonstrated. If
>>>> that is still a goal for the 0.1 release we will need to come up
>>>> with some solution.
>>>
>>> no ideas from me on this one :-)
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David Jencks wrote:
>>>>> I think everything is ok.... I think (at least with dryRun=true)
>>>>> that the release plugin builds the project first as-is and checks
>>>>> that signing etc works.
>>>>> I added autoVersionSubmodules=true in the root parent pom which
>>>>> will make things work more smoothly :-)
>>>>> I really recommend changing the version to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>>> first, I'm happy to do this if you want.
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>> scratch that. I'm working thru this:
>>>>>> http://maven.apache.org/developers/release/apache-release.html as
>>>>>> there's several steps I haven't done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2 March 2010 16:17, Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2 March 2010 02:28, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I've done most of what I think is needed for aries to be basically
>>>>>>>> releasable. There are some bits left and possibly stuff I've
>>>>>>>> missed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. legal file review. There are a bunch of NOTICE files that
>>>>>>>> claim that
>>>>>>>> work from osgi is included. Really? license and notice files
>>>>>>>> are supposed
>>>>>>>> to apply to what is actually in an artifact or checkout. Are
>>>>>>>> some of our
>>>>>>>> source files copied from an osgi source? Also all the legal
>>>>>>>> files that end
>>>>>>>> up in binary artifacts need to be checked. Also we need to run
>>>>>>>> the rat
>>>>>>>> plugin: this should be configured in the default pom. Not sure
>>>>>>>> if I will
>>>>>>>> get to this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. actually using the eba-maven-plugn. I'm not entirely sure
>>>>>>>> how to make
>>>>>>>> sure that an eba is working so I didn't mess with this. I
>>>>>>>> think the plugin
>>>>>>>> itself is working well enough to use though.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. ordering dependencies and dependency management. I find it
>>>>>>>> convenient to
>>>>>>>> have these alphabetized so I can find what I'm looking for, but
>>>>>>>> I haven't
>>>>>>>> done this in most poms. I'm not sure why there isn't a usable
>>>>>>>> tool for
>>>>>>>> doing this but I haven't found one. Dull but useful...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3. It would probably be a really good idea to run mvn
>>>>>>>> dependency:analyze and
>>>>>>>> look carefully at the results. The results from this can require
>>>>>>>> interpretation so its best if someone who is very familiar with
>>>>>>>> how the code
>>>>>>>> works does this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4. before a release all snapshots need to be resolved to
>>>>>>>> released versions.
>>>>>>>> I don't know if there are any snapshots.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To summarize what I've tried to do:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. default-parent has dependency management for the basic osgi
>>>>>>>> dependencies
>>>>>>>> that all projects are pretty sure to use including the pax
>>>>>>>> stuff used mostly
>>>>>>>> for testing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. each subproject has legal files in its checkout root
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3. each subproject has an scm element in its pom, but no others
>>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4. each subproject has dependency management for everything
>>>>>>>> included in it.
>>>>>>>> In addition, it has its subprojects listed in dependency
>>>>>>>> management. (this
>>>>>>>> is bent slightly for the samples). This means that
>>>>>>>> (a) modules in a subproject don't need to include versions for
>>>>>>>> use of other
>>>>>>>> modules
>>>>>>>> (b) you can get dependency management for all the modules in a
>>>>>>>> subproject
>>>>>>>> by depending on the subproject pom with scope import. (see the
>>>>>>>> samples pom
>>>>>>>> for an example).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 5. As a result of (4), modules don't have any versions in any
>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>> elements.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Release is going to involve...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> releasing the parent
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In trunk/parent I tried:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mvn -DdryRun=true release:prepare -Papache-release
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Providing 0.1-incubating for the release version
>>>>>>> Defaulting to parent-0.1-incubating for the SCM release tag
>>>>>>> Defaulting to 0.2-incubating-SNAPSHOT for the new development
>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> then when it builds the 'Top Parent POM' it outputs this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building Aries :: Top Parent POM
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] task-segment: [clean, verify]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [clean:clean]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: classpath.resource.loader.class =>
>>>>>>> 'org.codehaus.plexus.velocity.ContextClassLoaderResourceLoader'.
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: velocimacro.messages.on => 'false'.
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.loader => 'classpath'.
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.manager.logwhenfound =>
>>>>>>> 'false'.
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [remote-resources:process {execution: default}]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [site:attach-descriptor]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [assembly:single {execution:
>>>>>>> source-release-assembly}]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added,
>>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already
>>>>>>> added, skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already
>>>>>>> added, skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building zip:
>>>>>>> C:\cygwin\home\hughesj\oss\aries\trunk\parent\target\parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-source-release.zip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added,
>>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already
>>>>>>> added, skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already
>>>>>>> added, skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Preparing source:jar
>>>>>>> [INFO] [WARNING] Removing: jar from forked lifecycle, to prevent
>>>>>>> recursive invocation.
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] No goals needed for project - skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [source:jar {execution: attach-sources}]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [javadoc:jar {execution: attach-javadocs}]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Not executing Javadoc as the project is not a Java
>>>>>>> classpath-capable package
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [gpg:sign {execution: default}]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so it seems to be outputting 1.0.0 artifacts still. Any ideas?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then stops at the gpg stage. I thought it would prompt me for my
>>>>>>> key
>>>>>>> passphrase at this point. Do I need gpg-agent to be running?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> updating the parent version wherever it is used (all subproject
>>>>>>>> parents)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> releasing the subprojects in an appropriate order and updating
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> versions wherever they are used.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It might be worthwhile changing the pom version to
>>>>>>>> 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>>>>>> (or something similar, 0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT?) before doing
>>>>>>>> this because
>>>>>>>> then the versions plugin can be used to update use of a
>>>>>>>> subproject to the
>>>>>>>> newly released version of what it uses. Going from
>>>>>>>> 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT to 0.1-incubating won't allow this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As noted in the "root" pom, don't try to release the root pom
>>>>>>>> and don't try
>>>>>>>> release everything at once from the root pom.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 11:55 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I started looking into cleaning up the build, and of course it
>>>>>>>>> is taking
>>>>>>>>> longer than I expected.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm seriously hampered by failing tests in a fresh checkout.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are some projects in application that stop compiling if you
>>>>>>>>> alphabetize the dependencies. It looks like osgi 3 artifacts
>>>>>>>>> are getting on
>>>>>>>>> the maven classpath before osgi 4.2 artifacts. Adding
>>>>>>>>> exclusions to the
>>>>>>>>> dependencies seems to fix it if you can figure out where the
>>>>>>>>> out of date
>>>>>>>>> jars are coming from.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The build is already much closer to a multi-release model than
>>>>>>>>> a single
>>>>>>>>> release model.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've diffed what I have so far and attached it to ARIES-173.
>>>>>>>>> It includes
>>>>>>>>> scm info and a lot of version corrections. Due to the failing
>>>>>>>>> tests I'm not
>>>>>>>>> too comfortable committing it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is anyone else seeing test failures locally?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Lin Sun wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It 'd be great if you are willing to fix these build issues,
>>>>>>>>>> since you
>>>>>>>>>> just went through a big release in Geronimo. :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I know the maven release plugin isn't friendly to use some
>>>>>>>>>> cases, so
>>>>>>>>>> it is best we get these resolved to make our release process
>>>>>>>>>> a bit
>>>>>>>>>> easier.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> EBA plugin would be a very nice add-on, if it comes in time
>>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lin
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, David Jencks
>>>>>>>>>> <da...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to understand the problems you see better, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> the maven background you guys have, any chance you could
>>>>>>>>>>>> explain what
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> problems are, why they are problems and the solution at
>>>>>>>>>>>> some point?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The biggest immediate problem is that without correct svn
>>>>>>>>>>> info you can't
>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>> a release with the release plugin. I'm pretty sure the way
>>>>>>>>>>> its set up
>>>>>>>>>>> now,
>>>>>>>>>>> when you try, the tag will be under maven's apache pom, not
>>>>>>>>>>> aries.
>>>>>>>>>>> (you'll
>>>>>>>>>>> fail unless you happen to be a maven committer too). You
>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>> want to try to do a release without the release plugin.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Organizationally there's no way that for instance blueprint,
>>>>>>>>>>> application,
>>>>>>>>>>> and samples should always be released in synchrony. Any
>>>>>>>>>>> time two of
>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>> happen to be ready for release at the same time it will be
>>>>>>>>>>> purely
>>>>>>>>>>> accidental. Right now everyone wants to get a milestone out
>>>>>>>>>>> the door,
>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>> looking at the different projects their state of completion
>>>>>>>>>>> is pretty
>>>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>>> wildly different. A decision to release all of them at once
>>>>>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>>>>> based in
>>>>>>>>>>> any way on them being equally complete. I'm suggesting that
>>>>>>>>>>> since build
>>>>>>>>>>> fixes are needed anyway, why not set up a maintainable
>>>>>>>>>>> structure that
>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> continue to work beyond this publicity release. The benefit
>>>>>>>>>>> to users is
>>>>>>>>>>> that aries will be able to release bits in a timely fashion;
>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> entire project will never be in a releasable state at once.
>>>>>>>>>>> (I'm only
>>>>>>>>>>> exaggerating a little bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What got me looking at this at all is what look like wild
>>>>>>>>>>> gyrations that
>>>>>>>>>>> don't really use maven properly to get an .eba (or some
>>>>>>>>>>> artifact) out
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> door. This might be ok for one release but (a) I think this
>>>>>>>>>>> can be done
>>>>>>>>>>> directly with the assembly plugin short term and (b) an
>>>>>>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin
>>>>>>>>>>> seems like the obvious more long term solution.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to fix the build and probably work on an eba
>>>>>>>>>>> plugin, but
>>>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>>>> be sure this is ok with everyone first.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alasdair
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23 Feb 2010, at 18:18, David Jencks
>>>>>>>>>>>> <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This discussion got me worried enough to take a look at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the aries
>>>>>>>>>>>>> build.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I'm even more worried.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> While it might feel good to try to push out a release as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fast as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd prefer to see a sustainable build system in place
>>>>>>>>>>>>> first. So far
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks to me as if aries is going to be a bunch of loosely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> coupled
>>>>>>>>>>>>> subprojects. Building them all at once is not going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> work for long.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we should recognize that and put that in the build
>>>>>>>>>>>>> system now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To me
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this means:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. a parent pom that isn't at the root of the svn trunk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. each subproject has pom info sufficient so it can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> released
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> svn info) (right now this is completely missing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> everywhere as far as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> see, which will result in ares getting tagged into svn as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> apache
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pom)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can still have a "fake" pom that builds everything, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it won't be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of any release procedure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having separately released subprojects does not prevent
>>>>>>>>>>>>> having a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>>>> vote on all the releases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd suggest a few other pom tweaks such as using resources
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> filtered-resources to distinguish when filtering is called
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In addition relevant to this particular bit of the thread,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we need an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin to assemble ebas. Getting this into a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> first release
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a great idea IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there's general agreement I can spend some time playing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and possibly working on the eba plugin.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 February 2010 13:09, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to see us release the sample applications
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least one complication. Both Blog Sample and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AriesTrader
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EBAs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using different techniques - but both leverage the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-antrun-plugin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally produce a file of type "eba".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I realised the .eba file generated in the blog-assembly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> module
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being pushed into my local repo. I've made some changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pom.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in ARIES-198 to fix this. So now it uses antrun to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create the .eba
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact and the build-helper-maven-plugin to push the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local repo. I needed to add NOTICE and LICENSE files to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the .eba for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ianal plugin in the verify phase to succeed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've not used the build-helper-maven-plugin before. Do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you know if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will work with the maven-release-plugin to push the eba
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifacts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when we do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a release? If so, then I should look at using the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AriesTrader.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the result is that the eba will not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available in a maven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repository.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the differences is that AriesTrader first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generates a jar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-assembly-plugin and then copies this to an eba.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The jar will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> managed by maven and IIUC it should be deployable as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "application"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an extension of "jar" rather than "eba". If that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps delivery of an application jar is an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1st
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. Unfortunately I haven't actually setup my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equinox
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assembly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deploy the eba yet - it still deploys all of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bundles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using the maven-assembly-plugin likely the preferred
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term. Perhaps we could copy the artifact to .eba and use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build-helper-maven-plugin to remove the .jar artifact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from maven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control and add the .eba one?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can give this a try for AriesTrader. If it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work out - is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there anything wrong with the approach I mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earlier of just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jar artifacts rather than the eba artifacts? Will the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support only look at *.eba archives?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to see at least those included:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * blueprint
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jmx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jndi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * transaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think applications are really usable yet and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looked at JPA yet, so can't tell about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The transaction component is functional and we've been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unchanged since a long time in ServiceMix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any particular concerns with it ? (I'm not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declarative transactions for blueprint, note).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 04:19, Joe Bohn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the response (even while on vacation!) ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be the release manager. Your response helps me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get a better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> picture
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the plans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was really just interested in the general
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objectives and timing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hadn't been discussed yet. To get the release out in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feb means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> delivered next week. I'm afraid the hill might be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steep to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climb that quickly but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The more communication the better. It's important to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and planning along the same lines (or understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quickly if there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences of opinion). Knowing that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release candidate next week means that we should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restrictive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on new content to avoid any unpleasant surprises.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any strong opinions on what should be in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or out -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general it doesn't make sense to release things that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functional.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment I'm not sure what those are - but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspect not all of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components are fully functional yet (for example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joe, sorry I started setting myself up tuesday
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but am now out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacation until monday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I think the 0.1 release should serve to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get what we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right now in the respectable form the ASF requires.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So 'must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haves'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are to get the build in the right shape to create the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files that are acceptable to the IPMC. I think each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main area of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code deserves at least a README to describe what's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is the first release there are likely a few
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unknowns -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> w.r.t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timing I hope/expect to get the release out this in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feb. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular JIRAs or other issues you feel should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. I'd like to rename the current JIRA version 1.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to 0.1 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues for 0.1 appropriately and issues not for 0.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to target a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.2 version. WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 February 2010 15:39, Joe Bohn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are your current thoughts and goals regarding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target dates?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it would be good if you could summarize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your thoughts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps on a page in the wiki that we can keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> updated as we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of particular interest would be the content that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first release (clarifying what we consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "must have" from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have"), the current status of that content, target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dates for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the process that we plan to use to generate the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12 February 2010 09:39, Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <gn...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great, thanks a lot. Let us know if you need any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess if you take some notes, it would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the wiki.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Certainly will. It's been a while since I did one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed quite a bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:32, Jeremy Hughes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <hu...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Kevan, thanks. I volunteer to be release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manager.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 February 2010 16:38, Kevan Miller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ke...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like the consensus is for a release with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version number. Best to start with a simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versioning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I don't view a 0.1 blueprint
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Showing the ability to generate an Apache
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the community. Would definitely like to see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We'll need a release manager. Any volunteers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --kevan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Joe
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aries release
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>.
David Jencks wrote:
> I changed the versions to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT (except for some
> blog-sample, see below) and filtered the config.ini files.
>
> I'm still seeing some test failures in jpa-container-itests. I can't
> figure out how these work or why they do or don't fail, I'm hoping
> someone who does can figure out what's wrong.
>
> The blog sample had been changed to use release versions. This is not
> OK for anything that might possibly ever be released. I changed them
> back to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT and the 1.1.0 to
> 0.1.0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT. If the idea is to show how a version
> upgrade can install a new feature I'd expect the new versions to work
> and to be consistent with any likely versions used in the future. I'm
> not entirely sure what osgi version 0.1.0.1-incubating will turn into,
> hopefully something plausible and larger than 0.1-incubating.
>
> If this is not ok for the purposes of the sample and you really need
> something like 1.0.0 and 1.1.0 then we'll have to find a way so that
> this project can be built but never released. I think that it is
> possible to configure deployment to a repository under
> samples/blog-sample/target which would work for this purpose. However
> this is unusual and I hope we can avoid it.
>
> Is anyone planning to convert the eba generation to using the new plugin?
I'll update AriesTrader for the eba generation using the new plugin today.
Thanks,
Joe
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Mar 3, 2010, at 11:00 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 11:06 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 10:33 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree that we should make a global change to
>>>> 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT first. Why wouldn't we just do that now?
>>>
>>> I started doing some experiments here...
>>>
>>> running
>>> mvn versions:set -DnewVersion=0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>
>>> in root and parent upgrades everything maven knows about just fine.
>>> However there's (1) mentioned below and also a hardcoded version in
>>> two blueprint-itests.
>>>
>>> According to
>>>
>>> http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxexam/Configuration+using+Maven+Plugin
>>>
>>> we should be able to replace the hardcoded versions with
>>> .versionAsInProject()
>>>
>>> if we run the maven-paxexam-plugin on the project. However I can't
>>> get it to work yet.
>>
>> I eventually figured enough about how pax-exam works to fix this. I
>> (hopefully temporarily) borrowed some test code from pax exam and
>> entered a patch at http://issues.ops4j.org/browse/PAXEXAM-171. If
>> there are no better ideas or objections I expect to commit it in a few
>> days. I'd guess at this point people might rather wait till after an
>> aries release or pax-exam release, whichever comes first, to move to
>> using the code once it gets in pax-exam?
>>
>>
>> I'm seeing a bunch of test failures later on with the changed
>> version. If I can't figure out what is causing them reasonably
>> quickly I'm going to commit the version change and suggest that
>> someone who understands how the tests work make them version-independent.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Just a heads-up on some other issues related to versions in samples.
>>>> There are two potential problems that I am aware of:
>>>>
>>>> 1) For both Blog-Sample and AriesTrader there are hard-coded
>>>> version references in the Equinox assembly config.ini file which are
>>>> used to specify the bundle jars that are to be started for the
>>>> assembly. Naturally, the versions of the aries bundles in this file
>>>> won't be updated by the maven-release-plugin. I'm not sure of a
>>>> good solution for this beyond just manually changing the config.ini
>>>> files prior to creating a release candidate.
>>>
>>> I think we might be able to work around this by putting the
>>> config.ini files in src/main/resources/filtered-resources and
>>> defining a bunch of properties in an appropriate pom and using them
>>> for the version imports of the aries subproject dependencyManagement
>>> imports in the samples root pom. I haven't tried this yet...
>>>
>>
>> I think I can do this bit fairly soon...
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> 2) I think there is still an unresolved issue related to
>>>> Blog-Sample and how we might be able to demonstrate a bundle upgrade
>>>> scenario. I'm not sure if this capability is included yet in
>>>> Blog-Sample - so it might still be a non-issue at the moment.
>>>> However, we had some discussion on this a week ago or so related to
>>>> how we might be able to include multiple versions of components in
>>>> the sample so that an upgrade scenario could be demonstrated. If
>>>> that is still a goal for the 0.1 release we will need to come up
>>>> with some solution.
>>>
>>> no ideas from me on this one :-)
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David Jencks wrote:
>>>>> I think everything is ok.... I think (at least with dryRun=true)
>>>>> that the release plugin builds the project first as-is and checks
>>>>> that signing etc works.
>>>>> I added autoVersionSubmodules=true in the root parent pom which
>>>>> will make things work more smoothly :-)
>>>>> I really recommend changing the version to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>>> first, I'm happy to do this if you want.
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>> scratch that. I'm working thru this:
>>>>>> http://maven.apache.org/developers/release/apache-release.html as
>>>>>> there's several steps I haven't done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2 March 2010 16:17, Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2 March 2010 02:28, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I've done most of what I think is needed for aries to be basically
>>>>>>>> releasable. There are some bits left and possibly stuff I've
>>>>>>>> missed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. legal file review. There are a bunch of NOTICE files that
>>>>>>>> claim that
>>>>>>>> work from osgi is included. Really? license and notice files
>>>>>>>> are supposed
>>>>>>>> to apply to what is actually in an artifact or checkout. Are
>>>>>>>> some of our
>>>>>>>> source files copied from an osgi source? Also all the legal
>>>>>>>> files that end
>>>>>>>> up in binary artifacts need to be checked. Also we need to run
>>>>>>>> the rat
>>>>>>>> plugin: this should be configured in the default pom. Not sure
>>>>>>>> if I will
>>>>>>>> get to this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. actually using the eba-maven-plugn. I'm not entirely sure
>>>>>>>> how to make
>>>>>>>> sure that an eba is working so I didn't mess with this. I think
>>>>>>>> the plugin
>>>>>>>> itself is working well enough to use though.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. ordering dependencies and dependency management. I find it
>>>>>>>> convenient to
>>>>>>>> have these alphabetized so I can find what I'm looking for, but
>>>>>>>> I haven't
>>>>>>>> done this in most poms. I'm not sure why there isn't a usable
>>>>>>>> tool for
>>>>>>>> doing this but I haven't found one. Dull but useful...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3. It would probably be a really good idea to run mvn
>>>>>>>> dependency:analyze and
>>>>>>>> look carefully at the results. The results from this can require
>>>>>>>> interpretation so its best if someone who is very familiar with
>>>>>>>> how the code
>>>>>>>> works does this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4. before a release all snapshots need to be resolved to
>>>>>>>> released versions.
>>>>>>>> I don't know if there are any snapshots.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To summarize what I've tried to do:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. default-parent has dependency management for the basic osgi
>>>>>>>> dependencies
>>>>>>>> that all projects are pretty sure to use including the pax stuff
>>>>>>>> used mostly
>>>>>>>> for testing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. each subproject has legal files in its checkout root
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3. each subproject has an scm element in its pom, but no others do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4. each subproject has dependency management for everything
>>>>>>>> included in it.
>>>>>>>> In addition, it has its subprojects listed in dependency
>>>>>>>> management. (this
>>>>>>>> is bent slightly for the samples). This means that
>>>>>>>> (a) modules in a subproject don't need to include versions for
>>>>>>>> use of other
>>>>>>>> modules
>>>>>>>> (b) you can get dependency management for all the modules in a
>>>>>>>> subproject
>>>>>>>> by depending on the subproject pom with scope import. (see the
>>>>>>>> samples pom
>>>>>>>> for an example).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 5. As a result of (4), modules don't have any versions in any
>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>> elements.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Release is going to involve...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> releasing the parent
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In trunk/parent I tried:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mvn -DdryRun=true release:prepare -Papache-release
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Providing 0.1-incubating for the release version
>>>>>>> Defaulting to parent-0.1-incubating for the SCM release tag
>>>>>>> Defaulting to 0.2-incubating-SNAPSHOT for the new development
>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> then when it builds the 'Top Parent POM' it outputs this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building Aries :: Top Parent POM
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] task-segment: [clean, verify]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [clean:clean]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: classpath.resource.loader.class =>
>>>>>>> 'org.codehaus.plexus.velocity.ContextClassLoaderResourceLoader'.
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: velocimacro.messages.on => 'false'.
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.loader => 'classpath'.
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.manager.logwhenfound =>
>>>>>>> 'false'.
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [remote-resources:process {execution: default}]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [site:attach-descriptor]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [assembly:single {execution: source-release-assembly}]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added,
>>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already
>>>>>>> added, skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already
>>>>>>> added, skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building zip:
>>>>>>> C:\cygwin\home\hughesj\oss\aries\trunk\parent\target\parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-source-release.zip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added,
>>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already
>>>>>>> added, skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already
>>>>>>> added, skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Preparing source:jar
>>>>>>> [INFO] [WARNING] Removing: jar from forked lifecycle, to prevent
>>>>>>> recursive invocation.
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] No goals needed for project - skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [source:jar {execution: attach-sources}]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [javadoc:jar {execution: attach-javadocs}]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Not executing Javadoc as the project is not a Java
>>>>>>> classpath-capable package
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [gpg:sign {execution: default}]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so it seems to be outputting 1.0.0 artifacts still. Any ideas?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then stops at the gpg stage. I thought it would prompt me for my key
>>>>>>> passphrase at this point. Do I need gpg-agent to be running?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> updating the parent version wherever it is used (all subproject
>>>>>>>> parents)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> releasing the subprojects in an appropriate order and updating
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> versions wherever they are used.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It might be worthwhile changing the pom version to
>>>>>>>> 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>>>>>> (or something similar, 0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT?) before doing
>>>>>>>> this because
>>>>>>>> then the versions plugin can be used to update use of a
>>>>>>>> subproject to the
>>>>>>>> newly released version of what it uses. Going from
>>>>>>>> 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT to 0.1-incubating won't allow this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As noted in the "root" pom, don't try to release the root pom
>>>>>>>> and don't try
>>>>>>>> release everything at once from the root pom.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 11:55 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I started looking into cleaning up the build, and of course it
>>>>>>>>> is taking
>>>>>>>>> longer than I expected.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm seriously hampered by failing tests in a fresh checkout.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are some projects in application that stop compiling if you
>>>>>>>>> alphabetize the dependencies. It looks like osgi 3 artifacts
>>>>>>>>> are getting on
>>>>>>>>> the maven classpath before osgi 4.2 artifacts. Adding
>>>>>>>>> exclusions to the
>>>>>>>>> dependencies seems to fix it if you can figure out where the
>>>>>>>>> out of date
>>>>>>>>> jars are coming from.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The build is already much closer to a multi-release model than
>>>>>>>>> a single
>>>>>>>>> release model.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've diffed what I have so far and attached it to ARIES-173.
>>>>>>>>> It includes
>>>>>>>>> scm info and a lot of version corrections. Due to the failing
>>>>>>>>> tests I'm not
>>>>>>>>> too comfortable committing it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is anyone else seeing test failures locally?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Lin Sun wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It 'd be great if you are willing to fix these build issues,
>>>>>>>>>> since you
>>>>>>>>>> just went through a big release in Geronimo. :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I know the maven release plugin isn't friendly to use some
>>>>>>>>>> cases, so
>>>>>>>>>> it is best we get these resolved to make our release process a
>>>>>>>>>> bit
>>>>>>>>>> easier.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> EBA plugin would be a very nice add-on, if it comes in time
>>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lin
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, David Jencks
>>>>>>>>>> <da...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to understand the problems you see better, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> the maven background you guys have, any chance you could
>>>>>>>>>>>> explain what
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> problems are, why they are problems and the solution at some
>>>>>>>>>>>> point?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The biggest immediate problem is that without correct svn
>>>>>>>>>>> info you can't
>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>> a release with the release plugin. I'm pretty sure the way
>>>>>>>>>>> its set up
>>>>>>>>>>> now,
>>>>>>>>>>> when you try, the tag will be under maven's apache pom, not
>>>>>>>>>>> aries.
>>>>>>>>>>> (you'll
>>>>>>>>>>> fail unless you happen to be a maven committer too). You
>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>> want to try to do a release without the release plugin.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Organizationally there's no way that for instance blueprint,
>>>>>>>>>>> application,
>>>>>>>>>>> and samples should always be released in synchrony. Any time
>>>>>>>>>>> two of
>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>> happen to be ready for release at the same time it will be
>>>>>>>>>>> purely
>>>>>>>>>>> accidental. Right now everyone wants to get a milestone out
>>>>>>>>>>> the door,
>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>> looking at the different projects their state of completion
>>>>>>>>>>> is pretty
>>>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>>> wildly different. A decision to release all of them at once
>>>>>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>>>>> based in
>>>>>>>>>>> any way on them being equally complete. I'm suggesting that
>>>>>>>>>>> since build
>>>>>>>>>>> fixes are needed anyway, why not set up a maintainable
>>>>>>>>>>> structure that
>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> continue to work beyond this publicity release. The benefit
>>>>>>>>>>> to users is
>>>>>>>>>>> that aries will be able to release bits in a timely fashion;
>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> entire project will never be in a releasable state at once.
>>>>>>>>>>> (I'm only
>>>>>>>>>>> exaggerating a little bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What got me looking at this at all is what look like wild
>>>>>>>>>>> gyrations that
>>>>>>>>>>> don't really use maven properly to get an .eba (or some
>>>>>>>>>>> artifact) out
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> door. This might be ok for one release but (a) I think this
>>>>>>>>>>> can be done
>>>>>>>>>>> directly with the assembly plugin short term and (b) an
>>>>>>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin
>>>>>>>>>>> seems like the obvious more long term solution.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to fix the build and probably work on an eba
>>>>>>>>>>> plugin, but
>>>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>>>> be sure this is ok with everyone first.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alasdair
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23 Feb 2010, at 18:18, David Jencks
>>>>>>>>>>>> <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This discussion got me worried enough to take a look at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aries
>>>>>>>>>>>>> build.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I'm even more worried.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> While it might feel good to try to push out a release as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fast as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd prefer to see a sustainable build system in place
>>>>>>>>>>>>> first. So far
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks to me as if aries is going to be a bunch of loosely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> coupled
>>>>>>>>>>>>> subprojects. Building them all at once is not going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> work for long.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we should recognize that and put that in the build
>>>>>>>>>>>>> system now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To me
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this means:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. a parent pom that isn't at the root of the svn trunk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. each subproject has pom info sufficient so it can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> released
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> svn info) (right now this is completely missing everywhere
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as far as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> see, which will result in ares getting tagged into svn as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> apache
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pom)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can still have a "fake" pom that builds everything, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it won't be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of any release procedure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having separately released subprojects does not prevent
>>>>>>>>>>>>> having a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>>>> vote on all the releases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd suggest a few other pom tweaks such as using resources and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> filtered-resources to distinguish when filtering is called
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In addition relevant to this particular bit of the thread,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we need an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin to assemble ebas. Getting this into a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> first release
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a great idea IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there's general agreement I can spend some time playing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and possibly working on the eba plugin.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 February 2010 13:09, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to see us release the sample applications
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least one complication. Both Blog Sample and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AriesTrader
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EBAs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using different techniques - but both leverage the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-antrun-plugin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally produce a file of type "eba".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I realised the .eba file generated in the blog-assembly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> module
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being pushed into my local repo. I've made some changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pom.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in ARIES-198 to fix this. So now it uses antrun to create
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the .eba
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact and the build-helper-maven-plugin to push the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local repo. I needed to add NOTICE and LICENSE files to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the .eba for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ianal plugin in the verify phase to succeed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've not used the build-helper-maven-plugin before. Do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you know if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will work with the maven-release-plugin to push the eba
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifacts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when we do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a release? If so, then I should look at using the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AriesTrader.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the result is that the eba will not be available
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a maven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repository.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the differences is that AriesTrader first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generates a jar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-assembly-plugin and then copies this to an eba.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The jar will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> managed by maven and IIUC it should be deployable as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "application"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an extension of "jar" rather than "eba". If that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps delivery of an application jar is an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1st
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. Unfortunately I haven't actually setup my equinox
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assembly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deploy the eba yet - it still deploys all of the individual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bundles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using the maven-assembly-plugin likely the preferred
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term. Perhaps we could copy the artifact to .eba and use the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build-helper-maven-plugin to remove the .jar artifact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from maven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control and add the .eba one?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can give this a try for AriesTrader. If it doesn't work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out - is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there anything wrong with the approach I mentioned earlier
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jar artifacts rather than the eba artifacts? Will the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support only look at *.eba archives?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to see at least those included:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * blueprint
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jmx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jndi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * transaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think applications are really usable yet and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looked at JPA yet, so can't tell about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The transaction component is functional and we've been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unchanged since a long time in ServiceMix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any particular concerns with it ? (I'm not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declarative transactions for blueprint, note).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 04:19, Joe Bohn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the response (even while on vacation!) ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be the release manager. Your response helps me get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> picture
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the plans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was really just interested in the general objectives
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and timing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hadn't been discussed yet. To get the release out in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feb means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> delivered next week. I'm afraid the hill might be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steep to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climb that quickly but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The more communication the better. It's important to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and planning along the same lines (or understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quickly if there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences of opinion). Knowing that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release candidate next week means that we should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restrictive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on new content to avoid any unpleasant surprises.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any strong opinions on what should be in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or out -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general it doesn't make sense to release things that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functional.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment I'm not sure what those are - but I suspect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not all of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components are fully functional yet (for example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joe, sorry I started setting myself up tuesday but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am now out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacation until monday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I think the 0.1 release should serve to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get what we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right now in the respectable form the ASF requires.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So 'must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haves'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are to get the build in the right shape to create the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files that are acceptable to the IPMC. I think each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main area of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code deserves at least a README to describe what's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is the first release there are likely a few
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unknowns -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> w.r.t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timing I hope/expect to get the release out this in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feb. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular JIRAs or other issues you feel should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. I'd like to rename the current JIRA version 1.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to 0.1 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues for 0.1 appropriately and issues not for 0.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to target a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.2 version. WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 February 2010 15:39, Joe Bohn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are your current thoughts and goals regarding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target dates?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it would be good if you could summarize your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps on a page in the wiki that we can keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> updated as we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of particular interest would be the content that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first release (clarifying what we consider "must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have" from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have"), the current status of that content, target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dates for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the process that we plan to use to generate the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12 February 2010 09:39, Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <gn...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great, thanks a lot. Let us know if you need any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess if you take some notes, it would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the wiki.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Certainly will. It's been a while since I did one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed quite a bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:32, Jeremy Hughes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <hu...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Kevan, thanks. I volunteer to be release manager.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 February 2010 16:38, Kevan Miller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ke...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like the consensus is for a release with all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version number. Best to start with a simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versioning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I don't view a 0.1 blueprint release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Showing the ability to generate an Apache
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the community. Would definitely like to see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We'll need a release manager. Any volunteers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --kevan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Joe
>>>
>>
>
>
--
Joe
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aries release
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>.
David Jencks wrote:
> I changed the versions to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT (except for some
> blog-sample, see below) and filtered the config.ini files.
>
> I'm still seeing some test failures in jpa-container-itests. I can't
> figure out how these work or why they do or don't fail, I'm hoping
> someone who does can figure out what's wrong.
I just checked in a change in rev. 919023 that fixes the imports and
makes the test pass. If this isn't the right fix please undo it ... but
it works for me and makes the jpa bundles usable in my equinox assembly
for AriesTrader.
Joe
>
> The blog sample had been changed to use release versions. This is not
> OK for anything that might possibly ever be released. I changed them
> back to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT and the 1.1.0 to
> 0.1.0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT. If the idea is to show how a version
> upgrade can install a new feature I'd expect the new versions to work
> and to be consistent with any likely versions used in the future. I'm
> not entirely sure what osgi version 0.1.0.1-incubating will turn into,
> hopefully something plausible and larger than 0.1-incubating.
>
> If this is not ok for the purposes of the sample and you really need
> something like 1.0.0 and 1.1.0 then we'll have to find a way so that
> this project can be built but never released. I think that it is
> possible to configure deployment to a repository under
> samples/blog-sample/target which would work for this purpose. However
> this is unusual and I hope we can avoid it.
>
> Is anyone planning to convert the eba generation to using the new plugin?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Mar 3, 2010, at 11:00 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 11:06 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 10:33 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree that we should make a global change to
>>>> 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT first. Why wouldn't we just do that now?
>>>
>>> I started doing some experiments here...
>>>
>>> running
>>> mvn versions:set -DnewVersion=0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>
>>> in root and parent upgrades everything maven knows about just fine.
>>> However there's (1) mentioned below and also a hardcoded version in
>>> two blueprint-itests.
>>>
>>> According to
>>>
>>> http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxexam/Configuration+using+Maven+Plugin
>>>
>>> we should be able to replace the hardcoded versions with
>>> .versionAsInProject()
>>>
>>> if we run the maven-paxexam-plugin on the project. However I can't
>>> get it to work yet.
>>
>> I eventually figured enough about how pax-exam works to fix this. I
>> (hopefully temporarily) borrowed some test code from pax exam and
>> entered a patch at http://issues.ops4j.org/browse/PAXEXAM-171. If
>> there are no better ideas or objections I expect to commit it in a few
>> days. I'd guess at this point people might rather wait till after an
>> aries release or pax-exam release, whichever comes first, to move to
>> using the code once it gets in pax-exam?
>>
>>
>> I'm seeing a bunch of test failures later on with the changed
>> version. If I can't figure out what is causing them reasonably
>> quickly I'm going to commit the version change and suggest that
>> someone who understands how the tests work make them version-independent.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Just a heads-up on some other issues related to versions in samples.
>>>> There are two potential problems that I am aware of:
>>>>
>>>> 1) For both Blog-Sample and AriesTrader there are hard-coded
>>>> version references in the Equinox assembly config.ini file which are
>>>> used to specify the bundle jars that are to be started for the
>>>> assembly. Naturally, the versions of the aries bundles in this file
>>>> won't be updated by the maven-release-plugin. I'm not sure of a
>>>> good solution for this beyond just manually changing the config.ini
>>>> files prior to creating a release candidate.
>>>
>>> I think we might be able to work around this by putting the
>>> config.ini files in src/main/resources/filtered-resources and
>>> defining a bunch of properties in an appropriate pom and using them
>>> for the version imports of the aries subproject dependencyManagement
>>> imports in the samples root pom. I haven't tried this yet...
>>>
>>
>> I think I can do this bit fairly soon...
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> 2) I think there is still an unresolved issue related to
>>>> Blog-Sample and how we might be able to demonstrate a bundle upgrade
>>>> scenario. I'm not sure if this capability is included yet in
>>>> Blog-Sample - so it might still be a non-issue at the moment.
>>>> However, we had some discussion on this a week ago or so related to
>>>> how we might be able to include multiple versions of components in
>>>> the sample so that an upgrade scenario could be demonstrated. If
>>>> that is still a goal for the 0.1 release we will need to come up
>>>> with some solution.
>>>
>>> no ideas from me on this one :-)
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David Jencks wrote:
>>>>> I think everything is ok.... I think (at least with dryRun=true)
>>>>> that the release plugin builds the project first as-is and checks
>>>>> that signing etc works.
>>>>> I added autoVersionSubmodules=true in the root parent pom which
>>>>> will make things work more smoothly :-)
>>>>> I really recommend changing the version to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>>> first, I'm happy to do this if you want.
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>> scratch that. I'm working thru this:
>>>>>> http://maven.apache.org/developers/release/apache-release.html as
>>>>>> there's several steps I haven't done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2 March 2010 16:17, Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2 March 2010 02:28, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I've done most of what I think is needed for aries to be basically
>>>>>>>> releasable. There are some bits left and possibly stuff I've
>>>>>>>> missed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. legal file review. There are a bunch of NOTICE files that
>>>>>>>> claim that
>>>>>>>> work from osgi is included. Really? license and notice files
>>>>>>>> are supposed
>>>>>>>> to apply to what is actually in an artifact or checkout. Are
>>>>>>>> some of our
>>>>>>>> source files copied from an osgi source? Also all the legal
>>>>>>>> files that end
>>>>>>>> up in binary artifacts need to be checked. Also we need to run
>>>>>>>> the rat
>>>>>>>> plugin: this should be configured in the default pom. Not sure
>>>>>>>> if I will
>>>>>>>> get to this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. actually using the eba-maven-plugn. I'm not entirely sure
>>>>>>>> how to make
>>>>>>>> sure that an eba is working so I didn't mess with this. I think
>>>>>>>> the plugin
>>>>>>>> itself is working well enough to use though.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. ordering dependencies and dependency management. I find it
>>>>>>>> convenient to
>>>>>>>> have these alphabetized so I can find what I'm looking for, but
>>>>>>>> I haven't
>>>>>>>> done this in most poms. I'm not sure why there isn't a usable
>>>>>>>> tool for
>>>>>>>> doing this but I haven't found one. Dull but useful...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3. It would probably be a really good idea to run mvn
>>>>>>>> dependency:analyze and
>>>>>>>> look carefully at the results. The results from this can require
>>>>>>>> interpretation so its best if someone who is very familiar with
>>>>>>>> how the code
>>>>>>>> works does this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4. before a release all snapshots need to be resolved to
>>>>>>>> released versions.
>>>>>>>> I don't know if there are any snapshots.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To summarize what I've tried to do:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. default-parent has dependency management for the basic osgi
>>>>>>>> dependencies
>>>>>>>> that all projects are pretty sure to use including the pax stuff
>>>>>>>> used mostly
>>>>>>>> for testing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. each subproject has legal files in its checkout root
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3. each subproject has an scm element in its pom, but no others do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4. each subproject has dependency management for everything
>>>>>>>> included in it.
>>>>>>>> In addition, it has its subprojects listed in dependency
>>>>>>>> management. (this
>>>>>>>> is bent slightly for the samples). This means that
>>>>>>>> (a) modules in a subproject don't need to include versions for
>>>>>>>> use of other
>>>>>>>> modules
>>>>>>>> (b) you can get dependency management for all the modules in a
>>>>>>>> subproject
>>>>>>>> by depending on the subproject pom with scope import. (see the
>>>>>>>> samples pom
>>>>>>>> for an example).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 5. As a result of (4), modules don't have any versions in any
>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>> elements.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Release is going to involve...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> releasing the parent
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In trunk/parent I tried:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mvn -DdryRun=true release:prepare -Papache-release
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Providing 0.1-incubating for the release version
>>>>>>> Defaulting to parent-0.1-incubating for the SCM release tag
>>>>>>> Defaulting to 0.2-incubating-SNAPSHOT for the new development
>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> then when it builds the 'Top Parent POM' it outputs this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building Aries :: Top Parent POM
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] task-segment: [clean, verify]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [clean:clean]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: classpath.resource.loader.class =>
>>>>>>> 'org.codehaus.plexus.velocity.ContextClassLoaderResourceLoader'.
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: velocimacro.messages.on => 'false'.
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.loader => 'classpath'.
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.manager.logwhenfound =>
>>>>>>> 'false'.
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [remote-resources:process {execution: default}]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [site:attach-descriptor]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [assembly:single {execution: source-release-assembly}]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added,
>>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already
>>>>>>> added, skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already
>>>>>>> added, skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building zip:
>>>>>>> C:\cygwin\home\hughesj\oss\aries\trunk\parent\target\parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-source-release.zip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added,
>>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already
>>>>>>> added, skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already
>>>>>>> added, skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Preparing source:jar
>>>>>>> [INFO] [WARNING] Removing: jar from forked lifecycle, to prevent
>>>>>>> recursive invocation.
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] No goals needed for project - skipping
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [source:jar {execution: attach-sources}]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [javadoc:jar {execution: attach-javadocs}]
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Not executing Javadoc as the project is not a Java
>>>>>>> classpath-capable package
>>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [gpg:sign {execution: default}]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so it seems to be outputting 1.0.0 artifacts still. Any ideas?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then stops at the gpg stage. I thought it would prompt me for my key
>>>>>>> passphrase at this point. Do I need gpg-agent to be running?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> updating the parent version wherever it is used (all subproject
>>>>>>>> parents)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> releasing the subprojects in an appropriate order and updating
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> versions wherever they are used.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It might be worthwhile changing the pom version to
>>>>>>>> 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>>>>>> (or something similar, 0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT?) before doing
>>>>>>>> this because
>>>>>>>> then the versions plugin can be used to update use of a
>>>>>>>> subproject to the
>>>>>>>> newly released version of what it uses. Going from
>>>>>>>> 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT to 0.1-incubating won't allow this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As noted in the "root" pom, don't try to release the root pom
>>>>>>>> and don't try
>>>>>>>> release everything at once from the root pom.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 11:55 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I started looking into cleaning up the build, and of course it
>>>>>>>>> is taking
>>>>>>>>> longer than I expected.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm seriously hampered by failing tests in a fresh checkout.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are some projects in application that stop compiling if you
>>>>>>>>> alphabetize the dependencies. It looks like osgi 3 artifacts
>>>>>>>>> are getting on
>>>>>>>>> the maven classpath before osgi 4.2 artifacts. Adding
>>>>>>>>> exclusions to the
>>>>>>>>> dependencies seems to fix it if you can figure out where the
>>>>>>>>> out of date
>>>>>>>>> jars are coming from.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The build is already much closer to a multi-release model than
>>>>>>>>> a single
>>>>>>>>> release model.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've diffed what I have so far and attached it to ARIES-173.
>>>>>>>>> It includes
>>>>>>>>> scm info and a lot of version corrections. Due to the failing
>>>>>>>>> tests I'm not
>>>>>>>>> too comfortable committing it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is anyone else seeing test failures locally?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Lin Sun wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It 'd be great if you are willing to fix these build issues,
>>>>>>>>>> since you
>>>>>>>>>> just went through a big release in Geronimo. :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I know the maven release plugin isn't friendly to use some
>>>>>>>>>> cases, so
>>>>>>>>>> it is best we get these resolved to make our release process a
>>>>>>>>>> bit
>>>>>>>>>> easier.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> EBA plugin would be a very nice add-on, if it comes in time
>>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lin
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, David Jencks
>>>>>>>>>> <da...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to understand the problems you see better, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> the maven background you guys have, any chance you could
>>>>>>>>>>>> explain what
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> problems are, why they are problems and the solution at some
>>>>>>>>>>>> point?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The biggest immediate problem is that without correct svn
>>>>>>>>>>> info you can't
>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>> a release with the release plugin. I'm pretty sure the way
>>>>>>>>>>> its set up
>>>>>>>>>>> now,
>>>>>>>>>>> when you try, the tag will be under maven's apache pom, not
>>>>>>>>>>> aries.
>>>>>>>>>>> (you'll
>>>>>>>>>>> fail unless you happen to be a maven committer too). You
>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>> want to try to do a release without the release plugin.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Organizationally there's no way that for instance blueprint,
>>>>>>>>>>> application,
>>>>>>>>>>> and samples should always be released in synchrony. Any time
>>>>>>>>>>> two of
>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>> happen to be ready for release at the same time it will be
>>>>>>>>>>> purely
>>>>>>>>>>> accidental. Right now everyone wants to get a milestone out
>>>>>>>>>>> the door,
>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>> looking at the different projects their state of completion
>>>>>>>>>>> is pretty
>>>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>>> wildly different. A decision to release all of them at once
>>>>>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>>>>> based in
>>>>>>>>>>> any way on them being equally complete. I'm suggesting that
>>>>>>>>>>> since build
>>>>>>>>>>> fixes are needed anyway, why not set up a maintainable
>>>>>>>>>>> structure that
>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> continue to work beyond this publicity release. The benefit
>>>>>>>>>>> to users is
>>>>>>>>>>> that aries will be able to release bits in a timely fashion;
>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> entire project will never be in a releasable state at once.
>>>>>>>>>>> (I'm only
>>>>>>>>>>> exaggerating a little bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What got me looking at this at all is what look like wild
>>>>>>>>>>> gyrations that
>>>>>>>>>>> don't really use maven properly to get an .eba (or some
>>>>>>>>>>> artifact) out
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> door. This might be ok for one release but (a) I think this
>>>>>>>>>>> can be done
>>>>>>>>>>> directly with the assembly plugin short term and (b) an
>>>>>>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin
>>>>>>>>>>> seems like the obvious more long term solution.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to fix the build and probably work on an eba
>>>>>>>>>>> plugin, but
>>>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>>>> be sure this is ok with everyone first.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alasdair
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23 Feb 2010, at 18:18, David Jencks
>>>>>>>>>>>> <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This discussion got me worried enough to take a look at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aries
>>>>>>>>>>>>> build.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I'm even more worried.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> While it might feel good to try to push out a release as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fast as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd prefer to see a sustainable build system in place
>>>>>>>>>>>>> first. So far
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks to me as if aries is going to be a bunch of loosely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> coupled
>>>>>>>>>>>>> subprojects. Building them all at once is not going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> work for long.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we should recognize that and put that in the build
>>>>>>>>>>>>> system now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To me
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this means:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. a parent pom that isn't at the root of the svn trunk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. each subproject has pom info sufficient so it can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> released
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> svn info) (right now this is completely missing everywhere
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as far as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> see, which will result in ares getting tagged into svn as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> apache
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pom)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can still have a "fake" pom that builds everything, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it won't be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of any release procedure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having separately released subprojects does not prevent
>>>>>>>>>>>>> having a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>>>> vote on all the releases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd suggest a few other pom tweaks such as using resources and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> filtered-resources to distinguish when filtering is called
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In addition relevant to this particular bit of the thread,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we need an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin to assemble ebas. Getting this into a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> first release
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a great idea IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there's general agreement I can spend some time playing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and possibly working on the eba plugin.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 February 2010 13:09, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to see us release the sample applications
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least one complication. Both Blog Sample and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AriesTrader
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EBAs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using different techniques - but both leverage the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-antrun-plugin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally produce a file of type "eba".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I realised the .eba file generated in the blog-assembly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> module
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being pushed into my local repo. I've made some changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pom.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in ARIES-198 to fix this. So now it uses antrun to create
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the .eba
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact and the build-helper-maven-plugin to push the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local repo. I needed to add NOTICE and LICENSE files to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the .eba for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ianal plugin in the verify phase to succeed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've not used the build-helper-maven-plugin before. Do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you know if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will work with the maven-release-plugin to push the eba
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifacts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when we do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a release? If so, then I should look at using the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AriesTrader.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the result is that the eba will not be available
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a maven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repository.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the differences is that AriesTrader first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generates a jar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-assembly-plugin and then copies this to an eba.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The jar will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> managed by maven and IIUC it should be deployable as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "application"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an extension of "jar" rather than "eba". If that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps delivery of an application jar is an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1st
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. Unfortunately I haven't actually setup my equinox
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assembly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deploy the eba yet - it still deploys all of the individual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bundles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using the maven-assembly-plugin likely the preferred
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term. Perhaps we could copy the artifact to .eba and use the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build-helper-maven-plugin to remove the .jar artifact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from maven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control and add the .eba one?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can give this a try for AriesTrader. If it doesn't work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out - is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there anything wrong with the approach I mentioned earlier
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jar artifacts rather than the eba artifacts? Will the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support only look at *.eba archives?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to see at least those included:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * blueprint
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jmx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jndi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * transaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think applications are really usable yet and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looked at JPA yet, so can't tell about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The transaction component is functional and we've been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unchanged since a long time in ServiceMix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any particular concerns with it ? (I'm not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declarative transactions for blueprint, note).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 04:19, Joe Bohn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the response (even while on vacation!) ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be the release manager. Your response helps me get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> picture
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the plans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was really just interested in the general objectives
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and timing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hadn't been discussed yet. To get the release out in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feb means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> delivered next week. I'm afraid the hill might be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steep to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climb that quickly but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The more communication the better. It's important to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and planning along the same lines (or understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quickly if there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences of opinion). Knowing that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release candidate next week means that we should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restrictive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on new content to avoid any unpleasant surprises.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any strong opinions on what should be in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or out -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general it doesn't make sense to release things that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functional.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment I'm not sure what those are - but I suspect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not all of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components are fully functional yet (for example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joe, sorry I started setting myself up tuesday but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am now out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacation until monday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I think the 0.1 release should serve to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get what we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right now in the respectable form the ASF requires.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So 'must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haves'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are to get the build in the right shape to create the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files that are acceptable to the IPMC. I think each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main area of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code deserves at least a README to describe what's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is the first release there are likely a few
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unknowns -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> w.r.t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timing I hope/expect to get the release out this in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feb. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular JIRAs or other issues you feel should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. I'd like to rename the current JIRA version 1.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to 0.1 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues for 0.1 appropriately and issues not for 0.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to target a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.2 version. WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 February 2010 15:39, Joe Bohn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are your current thoughts and goals regarding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target dates?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it would be good if you could summarize your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps on a page in the wiki that we can keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> updated as we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of particular interest would be the content that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first release (clarifying what we consider "must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have" from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have"), the current status of that content, target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dates for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the process that we plan to use to generate the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12 February 2010 09:39, Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <gn...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great, thanks a lot. Let us know if you need any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess if you take some notes, it would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the wiki.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Certainly will. It's been a while since I did one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed quite a bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:32, Jeremy Hughes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <hu...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Kevan, thanks. I volunteer to be release manager.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 February 2010 16:38, Kevan Miller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ke...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like the consensus is for a release with all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version number. Best to start with a simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versioning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I don't view a 0.1 blueprint release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Showing the ability to generate an Apache
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the community. Would definitely like to see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We'll need a release manager. Any volunteers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --kevan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Joe
>>>
>>
>
>
--
Joe
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aries release
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
I changed the versions to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT (except for some
blog-sample, see below) and filtered the config.ini files.
I'm still seeing some test failures in jpa-container-itests. I can't
figure out how these work or why they do or don't fail, I'm hoping
someone who does can figure out what's wrong.
The blog sample had been changed to use release versions. This is not
OK for anything that might possibly ever be released. I changed them
back to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT and the 1.1.0 to 0.1.0.1-incubating-
SNAPSHOT. If the idea is to show how a version upgrade can install a
new feature I'd expect the new versions to work and to be consistent
with any likely versions used in the future. I'm not entirely sure
what osgi version 0.1.0.1-incubating will turn into, hopefully
something plausible and larger than 0.1-incubating.
If this is not ok for the purposes of the sample and you really need
something like 1.0.0 and 1.1.0 then we'll have to find a way so that
this project can be built but never released. I think that it is
possible to configure deployment to a repository under samples/blog-
sample/target which would work for this purpose. However this is
unusual and I hope we can avoid it.
Is anyone planning to convert the eba generation to using the new
plugin?
thanks
david jencks
On Mar 3, 2010, at 11:00 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
> On Mar 2, 2010, at 11:06 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 10:33 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>
>>> I agree that we should make a global change to 0.1-incubating-
>>> SNAPSHOT first. Why wouldn't we just do that now?
>>
>> I started doing some experiments here...
>>
>> running
>> mvn versions:set -DnewVersion=0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>
>> in root and parent upgrades everything maven knows about just fine.
>> However there's (1) mentioned below and also a hardcoded version in
>> two blueprint-itests.
>>
>> According to
>>
>> http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxexam/Configuration+using+Maven
>> +Plugin
>>
>> we should be able to replace the hardcoded versions
>> with .versionAsInProject()
>>
>> if we run the maven-paxexam-plugin on the project. However I can't
>> get it to work yet.
>
> I eventually figured enough about how pax-exam works to fix this. I
> (hopefully temporarily) borrowed some test code from pax exam and
> entered a patch at http://issues.ops4j.org/browse/PAXEXAM-171. If
> there are no better ideas or objections I expect to commit it in a
> few days. I'd guess at this point people might rather wait till
> after an aries release or pax-exam release, whichever comes first,
> to move to using the code once it gets in pax-exam?
>
>
> I'm seeing a bunch of test failures later on with the changed
> version. If I can't figure out what is causing them reasonably
> quickly I'm going to commit the version change and suggest that
> someone who understands how the tests work make them version-
> independent.
>
>
>>>
>>> Just a heads-up on some other issues related to versions in
>>> samples. There are two potential problems that I am aware of:
>>>
>>> 1) For both Blog-Sample and AriesTrader there are hard-coded
>>> version references in the Equinox assembly config.ini file which
>>> are used to specify the bundle jars that are to be started for the
>>> assembly. Naturally, the versions of the aries bundles in this
>>> file won't be updated by the maven-release-plugin. I'm not sure
>>> of a good solution for this beyond just manually changing the
>>> config.ini files prior to creating a release candidate.
>>
>> I think we might be able to work around this by putting the
>> config.ini files in src/main/resources/filtered-resources and
>> defining a bunch of properties in an appropriate pom and using them
>> for the version imports of the aries subproject
>> dependencyManagement imports in the samples root pom. I haven't
>> tried this yet...
>>
>
> I think I can do this bit fairly soon...
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
>>>
>>> 2) I think there is still an unresolved issue related to Blog-
>>> Sample and how we might be able to demonstrate a bundle upgrade
>>> scenario. I'm not sure if this capability is included yet in
>>> Blog-Sample - so it might still be a non-issue at the moment.
>>> However, we had some discussion on this a week ago or so related
>>> to how we might be able to include multiple versions of components
>>> in the sample so that an upgrade scenario could be demonstrated.
>>> If that is still a goal for the 0.1 release we will need to come
>>> up with some solution.
>>
>> no ideas from me on this one :-)
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>>
>>> David Jencks wrote:
>>>> I think everything is ok.... I think (at least with dryRun=true)
>>>> that the release plugin builds the project first as-is and checks
>>>> that signing etc works.
>>>> I added autoVersionSubmodules=true in the root parent pom which
>>>> will make things work more smoothly :-)
>>>> I really recommend changing the version to 0.1-incubating-
>>>> SNAPSHOT first, I'm happy to do this if you want.
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>> scratch that. I'm working thru this:
>>>>> http://maven.apache.org/developers/release/apache-release.html as
>>>>> there's several steps I haven't done.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2 March 2010 16:17, Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2 March 2010 02:28, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I've done most of what I think is needed for aries to be
>>>>>>> basically
>>>>>>> releasable. There are some bits left and possibly stuff I've
>>>>>>> missed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. legal file review. There are a bunch of NOTICE files that
>>>>>>> claim that
>>>>>>> work from osgi is included. Really? license and notice files
>>>>>>> are supposed
>>>>>>> to apply to what is actually in an artifact or checkout. Are
>>>>>>> some of our
>>>>>>> source files copied from an osgi source? Also all the legal
>>>>>>> files that end
>>>>>>> up in binary artifacts need to be checked. Also we need to
>>>>>>> run the rat
>>>>>>> plugin: this should be configured in the default pom. Not
>>>>>>> sure if I will
>>>>>>> get to this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. actually using the eba-maven-plugn. I'm not entirely sure
>>>>>>> how to make
>>>>>>> sure that an eba is working so I didn't mess with this. I
>>>>>>> think the plugin
>>>>>>> itself is working well enough to use though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. ordering dependencies and dependency management. I find it
>>>>>>> convenient to
>>>>>>> have these alphabetized so I can find what I'm looking for,
>>>>>>> but I haven't
>>>>>>> done this in most poms. I'm not sure why there isn't a usable
>>>>>>> tool for
>>>>>>> doing this but I haven't found one. Dull but useful...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. It would probably be a really good idea to run mvn
>>>>>>> dependency:analyze and
>>>>>>> look carefully at the results. The results from this can
>>>>>>> require
>>>>>>> interpretation so its best if someone who is very familiar
>>>>>>> with how the code
>>>>>>> works does this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4. before a release all snapshots need to be resolved to
>>>>>>> released versions.
>>>>>>> I don't know if there are any snapshots.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To summarize what I've tried to do:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. default-parent has dependency management for the basic osgi
>>>>>>> dependencies
>>>>>>> that all projects are pretty sure to use including the pax
>>>>>>> stuff used mostly
>>>>>>> for testing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. each subproject has legal files in its checkout root
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. each subproject has an scm element in its pom, but no
>>>>>>> others do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4. each subproject has dependency management for everything
>>>>>>> included in it.
>>>>>>> In addition, it has its subprojects listed in dependency
>>>>>>> management. (this
>>>>>>> is bent slightly for the samples). This means that
>>>>>>> (a) modules in a subproject don't need to include versions for
>>>>>>> use of other
>>>>>>> modules
>>>>>>> (b) you can get dependency management for all the modules in a
>>>>>>> subproject
>>>>>>> by depending on the subproject pom with scope import. (see
>>>>>>> the samples pom
>>>>>>> for an example).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5. As a result of (4), modules don't have any versions in any
>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>> elements.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Release is going to involve...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> releasing the parent
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In trunk/parent I tried:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mvn -DdryRun=true release:prepare -Papache-release
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Providing 0.1-incubating for the release version
>>>>>> Defaulting to parent-0.1-incubating for the SCM release tag
>>>>>> Defaulting to 0.2-incubating-SNAPSHOT for the new development
>>>>>> version
>>>>>>
>>>>>> then when it builds the 'Top Parent POM' it outputs this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building Aries :: Top Parent POM
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] task-segment: [clean, verify]
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [clean:clean]
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: classpath.resource.loader.class
>>>>>> =>
>>>>>> 'org.codehaus.plexus.velocity.ContextClassLoaderResourceLoader'.
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: velocimacro.messages.on =>
>>>>>> 'false'.
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.loader => 'classpath'.
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.manager.logwhenfound
>>>>>> => 'false'.
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [remote-resources:process {execution: default}]
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [site:attach-descriptor]
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [assembly:single {execution: source-release-
>>>>>> assembly}]
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added,
>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already
>>>>>> added, skipping
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already
>>>>>> added, skipping
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building zip:
>>>>>> C:\cygwin\home\hughesj\oss\aries\trunk\parent\target
>>>>>> \parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-source-release.zip
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added,
>>>>>> skipping
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already
>>>>>> added, skipping
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already
>>>>>> added, skipping
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Preparing source:jar
>>>>>> [INFO] [WARNING] Removing: jar from forked lifecycle, to prevent
>>>>>> recursive invocation.
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] No goals needed for project - skipping
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [source:jar {execution: attach-sources}]
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [javadoc:jar {execution: attach-javadocs}]
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Not executing Javadoc as the project is not a Java
>>>>>> classpath-capable package
>>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [gpg:sign {execution: default}]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so it seems to be outputting 1.0.0 artifacts still. Any ideas?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then stops at the gpg stage. I thought it would prompt me for
>>>>>> my key
>>>>>> passphrase at this point. Do I need gpg-agent to be running?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> updating the parent version wherever it is used (all
>>>>>>> subproject parents)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> releasing the subprojects in an appropriate order and updating
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>> versions wherever they are used.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It might be worthwhile changing the pom version to 0.1-
>>>>>>> incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>>>>> (or something similar, 0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT?) before doing
>>>>>>> this because
>>>>>>> then the versions plugin can be used to update use of a
>>>>>>> subproject to the
>>>>>>> newly released version of what it uses. Going from
>>>>>>> 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT to 0.1-incubating won't allow this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As noted in the "root" pom, don't try to release the root pom
>>>>>>> and don't try
>>>>>>> release everything at once from the root pom.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 11:55 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I started looking into cleaning up the build, and of course
>>>>>>>> it is taking
>>>>>>>> longer than I expected.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm seriously hampered by failing tests in a fresh checkout.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are some projects in application that stop compiling if
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> alphabetize the dependencies. It looks like osgi 3 artifacts
>>>>>>>> are getting on
>>>>>>>> the maven classpath before osgi 4.2 artifacts. Adding
>>>>>>>> exclusions to the
>>>>>>>> dependencies seems to fix it if you can figure out where the
>>>>>>>> out of date
>>>>>>>> jars are coming from.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The build is already much closer to a multi-release model
>>>>>>>> than a single
>>>>>>>> release model.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've diffed what I have so far and attached it to ARIES-173.
>>>>>>>> It includes
>>>>>>>> scm info and a lot of version corrections. Due to the
>>>>>>>> failing tests I'm not
>>>>>>>> too comfortable committing it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is anyone else seeing test failures locally?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Lin Sun wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It 'd be great if you are willing to fix these build issues,
>>>>>>>>> since you
>>>>>>>>> just went through a big release in Geronimo. :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I know the maven release plugin isn't friendly to use some
>>>>>>>>> cases, so
>>>>>>>>> it is best we get these resolved to make our release process
>>>>>>>>> a bit
>>>>>>>>> easier.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> EBA plugin would be a very nice add-on, if it comes in time
>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lin
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to understand the problems you see better,
>>>>>>>>>>> but I do not
>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> the maven background you guys have, any chance you could
>>>>>>>>>>> explain what
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> problems are, why they are problems and the solution at
>>>>>>>>>>> some point?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The biggest immediate problem is that without correct svn
>>>>>>>>>> info you can't
>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>> a release with the release plugin. I'm pretty sure the way
>>>>>>>>>> its set up
>>>>>>>>>> now,
>>>>>>>>>> when you try, the tag will be under maven's apache pom, not
>>>>>>>>>> aries.
>>>>>>>>>> (you'll
>>>>>>>>>> fail unless you happen to be a maven committer too). You
>>>>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>> want to try to do a release without the release plugin.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Organizationally there's no way that for instance blueprint,
>>>>>>>>>> application,
>>>>>>>>>> and samples should always be released in synchrony. Any
>>>>>>>>>> time two of
>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>> happen to be ready for release at the same time it will be
>>>>>>>>>> purely
>>>>>>>>>> accidental. Right now everyone wants to get a milestone
>>>>>>>>>> out the door,
>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>> looking at the different projects their state of completion
>>>>>>>>>> is pretty
>>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>> wildly different. A decision to release all of them at
>>>>>>>>>> once is not
>>>>>>>>>> based in
>>>>>>>>>> any way on them being equally complete. I'm suggesting
>>>>>>>>>> that since build
>>>>>>>>>> fixes are needed anyway, why not set up a maintainable
>>>>>>>>>> structure that
>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>> continue to work beyond this publicity release. The
>>>>>>>>>> benefit to users is
>>>>>>>>>> that aries will be able to release bits in a timely
>>>>>>>>>> fashion; otherwise
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> entire project will never be in a releasable state at once.
>>>>>>>>>> (I'm only
>>>>>>>>>> exaggerating a little bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What got me looking at this at all is what look like wild
>>>>>>>>>> gyrations that
>>>>>>>>>> don't really use maven properly to get an .eba (or some
>>>>>>>>>> artifact) out
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> door. This might be ok for one release but (a) I think
>>>>>>>>>> this can be done
>>>>>>>>>> directly with the assembly plugin short term and (b) an eba-
>>>>>>>>>> maven-plugin
>>>>>>>>>> seems like the obvious more long term solution.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to fix the build and probably work on an eba
>>>>>>>>>> plugin, but
>>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>>> be sure this is ok with everyone first.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>> Alasdair
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 23 Feb 2010, at 18:18, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com
>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This discussion got me worried enough to take a look at
>>>>>>>>>>>> the aries
>>>>>>>>>>>> build.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I'm even more worried.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> While it might feel good to try to push out a release as
>>>>>>>>>>>> fast as
>>>>>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd prefer to see a sustainable build system in place
>>>>>>>>>>>> first. So far
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> looks to me as if aries is going to be a bunch of loosely
>>>>>>>>>>>> coupled
>>>>>>>>>>>> subprojects. Building them all at once is not going to
>>>>>>>>>>>> work for long.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> think we should recognize that and put that in the build
>>>>>>>>>>>> system now.
>>>>>>>>>>>> To me
>>>>>>>>>>>> this means:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. a parent pom that isn't at the root of the svn trunk.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. each subproject has pom info sufficient so it can be
>>>>>>>>>>>> released
>>>>>>>>>>>> (mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>> svn info) (right now this is completely missing
>>>>>>>>>>>> everywhere as far as
>>>>>>>>>>>> I can
>>>>>>>>>>>> see, which will result in ares getting tagged into svn as
>>>>>>>>>>>> part of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> apache
>>>>>>>>>>>> pom)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We can still have a "fake" pom that builds everything,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but it won't be
>>>>>>>>>>>> part of any release procedure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Having separately released subprojects does not prevent
>>>>>>>>>>>> having a
>>>>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>>> vote on all the releases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd suggest a few other pom tweaks such as using
>>>>>>>>>>>> resources and
>>>>>>>>>>>> filtered-resources to distinguish when filtering is
>>>>>>>>>>>> called for.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In addition relevant to this particular bit of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> thread, we need an
>>>>>>>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin to assemble ebas. Getting this into a
>>>>>>>>>>>> first release
>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>> be a great idea IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If there's general agreement I can spend some time
>>>>>>>>>>>> playing with the
>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>> and possibly working on the eba plugin.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 February 2010 13:09, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to see us release the sample
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications but I think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least one complication. Both Blog Sample and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AriesTrader
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EBAs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using different techniques - but both leverage the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-antrun-plugin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally produce a file of type "eba".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I realised the .eba file generated in the blog-assembly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> module
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being pushed into my local repo. I've made some changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pom.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in ARIES-198 to fix this. So now it uses antrun to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create the .eba
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact and the build-helper-maven-plugin to push the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local repo. I needed to add NOTICE and LICENSE files to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the .eba for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ianal plugin in the verify phase to succeed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've not used the build-helper-maven-plugin before. Do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you know if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will work with the maven-release-plugin to push the eba
>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifacts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> when we do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a release? If so, then I should look at using the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> AriesTrader.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the result is that the eba will not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available in a maven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repository.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the differences is that AriesTrader first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generates a jar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-assembly-plugin and then copies this to an eba.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The jar will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> managed by maven and IIUC it should be deployable as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "application"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an extension of "jar" rather than "eba". If that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps delivery of an application jar is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acceptable approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1st
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. Unfortunately I haven't actually setup my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equinox
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assembly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deploy the eba yet - it still deploys all of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bundles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using the maven-assembly-plugin likely the preferred
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term. Perhaps we could copy the artifact to .eba and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build-helper-maven-plugin to remove the .jar artifact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from maven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control and add the .eba one?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can give this a try for AriesTrader. If it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> work out - is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there anything wrong with the approach I mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>> earlier of just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> using the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> jar artifacts rather than the eba artifacts? Will the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>>>>>>> support only look at *.eba archives?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to see at least those included:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * blueprint
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jmx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jndi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * transaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think applications are really usable yet and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looked at JPA yet, so can't tell about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The transaction component is functional and we've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been using it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unchanged since a long time in ServiceMix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any particular concerns with it ? (I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declarative transactions for blueprint, note).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 04:19, Joe Bohn <joebohn@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the response (even while on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacation!) ... and for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be the release manager. Your response helps me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get a better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> picture
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the plans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was really just interested in the general
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objectives and timing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hadn't been discussed yet. To get the release out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Feb means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> delivered next week. I'm afraid the hill might be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steep to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climb that quickly but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The more communication the better. It's important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and planning along the same lines (or understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quickly if there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences of opinion). Knowing that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release candidate next week means that we should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restrictive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on new content to avoid any unpleasant surprises.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any strong opinions on what should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in or out -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general it doesn't make sense to release things that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functional.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment I'm not sure what those are - but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspect not all of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components are fully functional yet (for example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joe, sorry I started setting myself up tuesday
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but am now out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacation until monday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I think the 0.1 release should serve to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get what we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right now in the respectable form the ASF requires.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So 'must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haves'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are to get the build in the right shape to create the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files that are acceptable to the IPMC. I think each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main area of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code deserves at least a README to describe what's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is the first release there are likely a few
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unknowns -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> w.r.t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timing I hope/expect to get the release out this in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feb. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular JIRAs or other issues you feel should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. I'd like to rename the current JIRA version
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.0 to 0.1 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues for 0.1 appropriately and issues not for 0.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to target a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.2 version. WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 February 2010 15:39, Joe Bohn <joebohn@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are your current thoughts and goals regarding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target dates?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it would be good if you could summarize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your thoughts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps on a page in the wiki that we can keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> updated as we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of particular interest would be the content that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we would like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first release (clarifying what we consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "must have" from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have"), the current status of that content, target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dates for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the process that we plan to use to generate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12 February 2010 09:39, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great, thanks a lot. Let us know if you need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess if you take some notes, it would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the wiki.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Certainly will. It's been a while since I did one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed quite a bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:32, Jeremy Hughes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <hu...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Kevan, thanks. I volunteer to be release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manager.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 February 2010 16:38, Kevan Miller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ke...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like the consensus is for a release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version number. Best to start with a simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versioning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I don't view a 0.1 blueprint
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Showing the ability to generate an Apache
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the community. Would definitely like to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We'll need a release manager. Any volunteers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --kevan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Joe
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aries release
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Mar 2, 2010, at 11:06 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
> On Mar 2, 2010, at 10:33 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>
>> I agree that we should make a global change to 0.1-incubating-
>> SNAPSHOT first. Why wouldn't we just do that now?
>
> I started doing some experiments here...
>
> running
> mvn versions:set -DnewVersion=0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>
> in root and parent upgrades everything maven knows about just fine.
> However there's (1) mentioned below and also a hardcoded version in
> two blueprint-itests.
>
> According to
>
> http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxexam/Configuration+using+Maven+Plugin
>
> we should be able to replace the hardcoded versions
> with .versionAsInProject()
>
> if we run the maven-paxexam-plugin on the project. However I can't
> get it to work yet.
I eventually figured enough about how pax-exam works to fix this. I
(hopefully temporarily) borrowed some test code from pax exam and
entered a patch at http://issues.ops4j.org/browse/PAXEXAM-171. If
there are no better ideas or objections I expect to commit it in a few
days. I'd guess at this point people might rather wait till after an
aries release or pax-exam release, whichever comes first, to move to
using the code once it gets in pax-exam?
I'm seeing a bunch of test failures later on with the changed
version. If I can't figure out what is causing them reasonably
quickly I'm going to commit the version change and suggest that
someone who understands how the tests work make them version-
independent.
>>
>> Just a heads-up on some other issues related to versions in
>> samples. There are two potential problems that I am aware of:
>>
>> 1) For both Blog-Sample and AriesTrader there are hard-coded
>> version references in the Equinox assembly config.ini file which
>> are used to specify the bundle jars that are to be started for the
>> assembly. Naturally, the versions of the aries bundles in this file
>> won't be updated by the maven-release-plugin. I'm not sure of a
>> good solution for this beyond just manually changing the config.ini
>> files prior to creating a release candidate.
>
> I think we might be able to work around this by putting the
> config.ini files in src/main/resources/filtered-resources and
> defining a bunch of properties in an appropriate pom and using them
> for the version imports of the aries subproject dependencyManagement
> imports in the samples root pom. I haven't tried this yet...
>
I think I can do this bit fairly soon...
thanks
david jencks
>>
>> 2) I think there is still an unresolved issue related to Blog-
>> Sample and how we might be able to demonstrate a bundle upgrade
>> scenario. I'm not sure if this capability is included yet in Blog-
>> Sample - so it might still be a non-issue at the moment. However,
>> we had some discussion on this a week ago or so related to how we
>> might be able to include multiple versions of components in the
>> sample so that an upgrade scenario could be demonstrated. If that
>> is still a goal for the 0.1 release we will need to come up with
>> some solution.
>
> no ideas from me on this one :-)
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>> David Jencks wrote:
>>> I think everything is ok.... I think (at least with dryRun=true)
>>> that the release plugin builds the project first as-is and checks
>>> that signing etc works.
>>> I added autoVersionSubmodules=true in the root parent pom which
>>> will make things work more smoothly :-)
>>> I really recommend changing the version to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>> first, I'm happy to do this if you want.
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>> scratch that. I'm working thru this:
>>>> http://maven.apache.org/developers/release/apache-release.html as
>>>> there's several steps I haven't done.
>>>>
>>>> On 2 March 2010 16:17, Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 2 March 2010 02:28, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I've done most of what I think is needed for aries to be
>>>>>> basically
>>>>>> releasable. There are some bits left and possibly stuff I've
>>>>>> missed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. legal file review. There are a bunch of NOTICE files that
>>>>>> claim that
>>>>>> work from osgi is included. Really? license and notice files
>>>>>> are supposed
>>>>>> to apply to what is actually in an artifact or checkout. Are
>>>>>> some of our
>>>>>> source files copied from an osgi source? Also all the legal
>>>>>> files that end
>>>>>> up in binary artifacts need to be checked. Also we need to run
>>>>>> the rat
>>>>>> plugin: this should be configured in the default pom. Not sure
>>>>>> if I will
>>>>>> get to this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. actually using the eba-maven-plugn. I'm not entirely sure
>>>>>> how to make
>>>>>> sure that an eba is working so I didn't mess with this. I
>>>>>> think the plugin
>>>>>> itself is working well enough to use though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. ordering dependencies and dependency management. I find it
>>>>>> convenient to
>>>>>> have these alphabetized so I can find what I'm looking for, but
>>>>>> I haven't
>>>>>> done this in most poms. I'm not sure why there isn't a usable
>>>>>> tool for
>>>>>> doing this but I haven't found one. Dull but useful...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. It would probably be a really good idea to run mvn
>>>>>> dependency:analyze and
>>>>>> look carefully at the results. The results from this can require
>>>>>> interpretation so its best if someone who is very familiar with
>>>>>> how the code
>>>>>> works does this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4. before a release all snapshots need to be resolved to
>>>>>> released versions.
>>>>>> I don't know if there are any snapshots.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To summarize what I've tried to do:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. default-parent has dependency management for the basic osgi
>>>>>> dependencies
>>>>>> that all projects are pretty sure to use including the pax
>>>>>> stuff used mostly
>>>>>> for testing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. each subproject has legal files in its checkout root
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. each subproject has an scm element in its pom, but no others
>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4. each subproject has dependency management for everything
>>>>>> included in it.
>>>>>> In addition, it has its subprojects listed in dependency
>>>>>> management. (this
>>>>>> is bent slightly for the samples). This means that
>>>>>> (a) modules in a subproject don't need to include versions for
>>>>>> use of other
>>>>>> modules
>>>>>> (b) you can get dependency management for all the modules in a
>>>>>> subproject
>>>>>> by depending on the subproject pom with scope import. (see the
>>>>>> samples pom
>>>>>> for an example).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5. As a result of (4), modules don't have any versions in any
>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>> elements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Release is going to involve...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> releasing the parent
>>>>>
>>>>> In trunk/parent I tried:
>>>>>
>>>>> mvn -DdryRun=true release:prepare -Papache-release
>>>>>
>>>>> Providing 0.1-incubating for the release version
>>>>> Defaulting to parent-0.1-incubating for the SCM release tag
>>>>> Defaulting to 0.2-incubating-SNAPSHOT for the new development
>>>>> version
>>>>>
>>>>> then when it builds the 'Top Parent POM' it outputs this:
>>>>>
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building Aries :: Top Parent POM
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] task-segment: [clean, verify]
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [clean:clean]
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: classpath.resource.loader.class =>
>>>>> 'org.codehaus.plexus.velocity.ContextClassLoaderResourceLoader'.
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: velocimacro.messages.on =>
>>>>> 'false'.
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.loader => 'classpath'.
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.manager.logwhenfound =>
>>>>> 'false'.
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [remote-resources:process {execution: default}]
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [site:attach-descriptor]
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [assembly:single {execution: source-release-
>>>>> assembly}]
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added,
>>>>> skipping
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already
>>>>> added, skipping
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already
>>>>> added, skipping
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building zip:
>>>>> C:\cygwin\home\hughesj\oss\aries\trunk\parent\target
>>>>> \parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-source-release.zip
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added,
>>>>> skipping
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already
>>>>> added, skipping
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already
>>>>> added, skipping
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Preparing source:jar
>>>>> [INFO] [WARNING] Removing: jar from forked lifecycle, to prevent
>>>>> recursive invocation.
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] No goals needed for project - skipping
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [source:jar {execution: attach-sources}]
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [javadoc:jar {execution: attach-javadocs}]
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Not executing Javadoc as the project is not a Java
>>>>> classpath-capable package
>>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [gpg:sign {execution: default}]
>>>>>
>>>>> so it seems to be outputting 1.0.0 artifacts still. Any ideas?
>>>>>
>>>>> Then stops at the gpg stage. I thought it would prompt me for my
>>>>> key
>>>>> passphrase at this point. Do I need gpg-agent to be running?
>>>>>
>>>>>> updating the parent version wherever it is used (all subproject
>>>>>> parents)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> releasing the subprojects in an appropriate order and updating
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> versions wherever they are used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It might be worthwhile changing the pom version to 0.1-
>>>>>> incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>>>> (or something similar, 0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT?) before doing
>>>>>> this because
>>>>>> then the versions plugin can be used to update use of a
>>>>>> subproject to the
>>>>>> newly released version of what it uses. Going from
>>>>>> 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT to 0.1-incubating won't allow this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As noted in the "root" pom, don't try to release the root pom
>>>>>> and don't try
>>>>>> release everything at once from the root pom.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 11:55 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I started looking into cleaning up the build, and of course it
>>>>>>> is taking
>>>>>>> longer than I expected.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm seriously hampered by failing tests in a fresh checkout.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are some projects in application that stop compiling if
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> alphabetize the dependencies. It looks like osgi 3 artifacts
>>>>>>> are getting on
>>>>>>> the maven classpath before osgi 4.2 artifacts. Adding
>>>>>>> exclusions to the
>>>>>>> dependencies seems to fix it if you can figure out where the
>>>>>>> out of date
>>>>>>> jars are coming from.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The build is already much closer to a multi-release model than
>>>>>>> a single
>>>>>>> release model.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've diffed what I have so far and attached it to ARIES-173.
>>>>>>> It includes
>>>>>>> scm info and a lot of version corrections. Due to the failing
>>>>>>> tests I'm not
>>>>>>> too comfortable committing it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is anyone else seeing test failures locally?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Lin Sun wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It 'd be great if you are willing to fix these build issues,
>>>>>>>> since you
>>>>>>>> just went through a big release in Geronimo. :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know the maven release plugin isn't friendly to use some
>>>>>>>> cases, so
>>>>>>>> it is best we get these resolved to make our release process
>>>>>>>> a bit
>>>>>>>> easier.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> EBA plugin would be a very nice add-on, if it comes in time
>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lin
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I would like to understand the problems you see better, but
>>>>>>>>>> I do not
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> the maven background you guys have, any chance you could
>>>>>>>>>> explain what
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> problems are, why they are problems and the solution at
>>>>>>>>>> some point?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The biggest immediate problem is that without correct svn
>>>>>>>>> info you can't
>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>> a release with the release plugin. I'm pretty sure the way
>>>>>>>>> its set up
>>>>>>>>> now,
>>>>>>>>> when you try, the tag will be under maven's apache pom, not
>>>>>>>>> aries.
>>>>>>>>> (you'll
>>>>>>>>> fail unless you happen to be a maven committer too). You
>>>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>> want to try to do a release without the release plugin.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Organizationally there's no way that for instance blueprint,
>>>>>>>>> application,
>>>>>>>>> and samples should always be released in synchrony. Any
>>>>>>>>> time two of
>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>> happen to be ready for release at the same time it will be
>>>>>>>>> purely
>>>>>>>>> accidental. Right now everyone wants to get a milestone out
>>>>>>>>> the door,
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> looking at the different projects their state of completion
>>>>>>>>> is pretty
>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>> wildly different. A decision to release all of them at once
>>>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>>> based in
>>>>>>>>> any way on them being equally complete. I'm suggesting that
>>>>>>>>> since build
>>>>>>>>> fixes are needed anyway, why not set up a maintainable
>>>>>>>>> structure that
>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>> continue to work beyond this publicity release. The benefit
>>>>>>>>> to users is
>>>>>>>>> that aries will be able to release bits in a timely fashion;
>>>>>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> entire project will never be in a releasable state at once.
>>>>>>>>> (I'm only
>>>>>>>>> exaggerating a little bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What got me looking at this at all is what look like wild
>>>>>>>>> gyrations that
>>>>>>>>> don't really use maven properly to get an .eba (or some
>>>>>>>>> artifact) out
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> door. This might be ok for one release but (a) I think this
>>>>>>>>> can be done
>>>>>>>>> directly with the assembly plugin short term and (b) an eba-
>>>>>>>>> maven-plugin
>>>>>>>>> seems like the obvious more long term solution.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to fix the build and probably work on an eba
>>>>>>>>> plugin, but
>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>> be sure this is ok with everyone first.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>> Alasdair
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 23 Feb 2010, at 18:18, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com
>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This discussion got me worried enough to take a look at
>>>>>>>>>>> the aries
>>>>>>>>>>> build.
>>>>>>>>>>> Now I'm even more worried.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> While it might feel good to try to push out a release as
>>>>>>>>>>> fast as
>>>>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd prefer to see a sustainable build system in place
>>>>>>>>>>> first. So far
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> looks to me as if aries is going to be a bunch of loosely
>>>>>>>>>>> coupled
>>>>>>>>>>> subprojects. Building them all at once is not going to
>>>>>>>>>>> work for long.
>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>> think we should recognize that and put that in the build
>>>>>>>>>>> system now.
>>>>>>>>>>> To me
>>>>>>>>>>> this means:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. a parent pom that isn't at the root of the svn trunk.
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. each subproject has pom info sufficient so it can be
>>>>>>>>>>> released
>>>>>>>>>>> (mostly
>>>>>>>>>>> svn info) (right now this is completely missing
>>>>>>>>>>> everywhere as far as
>>>>>>>>>>> I can
>>>>>>>>>>> see, which will result in ares getting tagged into svn as
>>>>>>>>>>> part of the
>>>>>>>>>>> apache
>>>>>>>>>>> pom)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We can still have a "fake" pom that builds everything, but
>>>>>>>>>>> it won't be
>>>>>>>>>>> part of any release procedure.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Having separately released subprojects does not prevent
>>>>>>>>>>> having a
>>>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>> vote on all the releases.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd suggest a few other pom tweaks such as using resources
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> filtered-resources to distinguish when filtering is called
>>>>>>>>>>> for.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In addition relevant to this particular bit of the thread,
>>>>>>>>>>> we need an
>>>>>>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin to assemble ebas. Getting this into a
>>>>>>>>>>> first release
>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> be a great idea IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If there's general agreement I can spend some time playing
>>>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>> and possibly working on the eba plugin.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 February 2010 13:09, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to see us release the sample applications
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least one complication. Both Blog Sample and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AriesTrader
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EBAs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using different techniques - but both leverage the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-antrun-plugin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally produce a file of type "eba".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I realised the .eba file generated in the blog-assembly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> module
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> being pushed into my local repo. I've made some changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pom.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in ARIES-198 to fix this. So now it uses antrun to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> create the .eba
>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact and the build-helper-maven-plugin to push the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> local repo. I needed to add NOTICE and LICENSE files to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the .eba for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ianal plugin in the verify phase to succeed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've not used the build-helper-maven-plugin before. Do
>>>>>>>>>>>> you know if
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> will work with the maven-release-plugin to push the eba
>>>>>>>>>>>> artifacts
>>>>>>>>>>>> when we do
>>>>>>>>>>>> a release? If so, then I should look at using the same
>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism for
>>>>>>>>>>>> AriesTrader.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the result is that the eba will not be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available in a maven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repository.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the differences is that AriesTrader first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generates a jar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-assembly-plugin and then copies this to an eba.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The jar will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> managed by maven and IIUC it should be deployable as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "application"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an extension of "jar" rather than "eba". If that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps delivery of an application jar is an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1st
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. Unfortunately I haven't actually setup my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equinox
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assembly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deploy the eba yet - it still deploys all of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bundles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using the maven-assembly-plugin likely the preferred
>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach long
>>>>>>>>>>>>> term. Perhaps we could copy the artifact to .eba and use
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> build-helper-maven-plugin to remove the .jar artifact
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from maven
>>>>>>>>>>>>> control and add the .eba one?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I can give this a try for AriesTrader. If it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> work out - is
>>>>>>>>>>>> there anything wrong with the approach I mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>>> earlier of just
>>>>>>>>>>>> using the
>>>>>>>>>>>> jar artifacts rather than the eba artifacts? Will the
>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>>>>>> support only look at *.eba archives?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to see at least those included:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * blueprint
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jmx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jndi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * transaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think applications are really usable yet and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looked at JPA yet, so can't tell about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The transaction component is functional and we've been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unchanged since a long time in ServiceMix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any particular concerns with it ? (I'm not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declarative transactions for blueprint, note).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 04:19, Joe Bohn <joebohn@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the response (even while on vacation!) ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be the release manager. Your response helps me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get a better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> picture
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the plans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was really just interested in the general
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objectives and timing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hadn't been discussed yet. To get the release out in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feb means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> delivered next week. I'm afraid the hill might be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steep to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climb that quickly but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The more communication the better. It's important to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and planning along the same lines (or understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quickly if there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences of opinion). Knowing that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release candidate next week means that we should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restrictive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on new content to avoid any unpleasant surprises.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any strong opinions on what should be in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or out -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general it doesn't make sense to release things that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functional.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment I'm not sure what those are - but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspect not all of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components are fully functional yet (for example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joe, sorry I started setting myself up tuesday
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but am now out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacation until monday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I think the 0.1 release should serve to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get what we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right now in the respectable form the ASF requires.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So 'must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haves'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are to get the build in the right shape to create the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files that are acceptable to the IPMC. I think each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main area of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code deserves at least a README to describe what's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is the first release there are likely a few
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unknowns -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> w.r.t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timing I hope/expect to get the release out this in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feb. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular JIRAs or other issues you feel should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. I'd like to rename the current JIRA version 1.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to 0.1 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues for 0.1 appropriately and issues not for 0.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to target a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.2 version. WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 February 2010 15:39, Joe Bohn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are your current thoughts and goals regarding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target dates?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it would be good if you could summarize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your thoughts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps on a page in the wiki that we can keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> updated as we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of particular interest would be the content that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first release (clarifying what we consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "must have" from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have"), the current status of that content, target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dates for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the process that we plan to use to generate the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12 February 2010 09:39, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great, thanks a lot. Let us know if you need any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess if you take some notes, it would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the wiki.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Certainly will. It's been a while since I did one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed quite a bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:32, Jeremy Hughes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <hu...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Kevan, thanks. I volunteer to be release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manager.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 February 2010 16:38, Kevan Miller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ke...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like the consensus is for a release with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version number. Best to start with a simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versioning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I don't view a 0.1 blueprint
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Showing the ability to generate an Apache
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the community. Would definitely like to see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We'll need a release manager. Any volunteers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --kevan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Joe
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aries release
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Mar 2, 2010, at 10:33 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
> I agree that we should make a global change to 0.1-incubating-
> SNAPSHOT first. Why wouldn't we just do that now?
I started doing some experiments here...
running
mvn versions:set -DnewVersion=0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
in root and parent upgrades everything maven knows about just fine.
However there's (1) mentioned below and also a hardcoded version in
two blueprint-itests.
According to
http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxexam/Configuration+using+Maven+Plugin
we should be able to replace the hardcoded versions
with .versionAsInProject()
if we run the maven-paxexam-plugin on the project. However I can't get
it to work yet.
>
> Just a heads-up on some other issues related to versions in samples.
> There are two potential problems that I am aware of:
>
> 1) For both Blog-Sample and AriesTrader there are hard-coded
> version references in the Equinox assembly config.ini file which are
> used to specify the bundle jars that are to be started for the
> assembly. Naturally, the versions of the aries bundles in this file
> won't be updated by the maven-release-plugin. I'm not sure of a
> good solution for this beyond just manually changing the config.ini
> files prior to creating a release candidate.
I think we might be able to work around this by putting the config.ini
files in src/main/resources/filtered-resources and defining a bunch of
properties in an appropriate pom and using them for the version
imports of the aries subproject dependencyManagement imports in the
samples root pom. I haven't tried this yet...
>
> 2) I think there is still an unresolved issue related to Blog-
> Sample and how we might be able to demonstrate a bundle upgrade
> scenario. I'm not sure if this capability is included yet in Blog-
> Sample - so it might still be a non-issue at the moment. However,
> we had some discussion on this a week ago or so related to how we
> might be able to include multiple versions of components in the
> sample so that an upgrade scenario could be demonstrated. If that
> is still a goal for the 0.1 release we will need to come up with
> some solution.
no ideas from me on this one :-)
thanks
david jencks
>
> Joe
>
>
> David Jencks wrote:
>> I think everything is ok.... I think (at least with dryRun=true)
>> that the release plugin builds the project first as-is and checks
>> that signing etc works.
>> I added autoVersionSubmodules=true in the root parent pom which
>> will make things work more smoothly :-)
>> I really recommend changing the version to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>> first, I'm happy to do this if you want.
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>> scratch that. I'm working thru this:
>>> http://maven.apache.org/developers/release/apache-release.html as
>>> there's several steps I haven't done.
>>>
>>> On 2 March 2010 16:17, Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> On 2 March 2010 02:28, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> I've done most of what I think is needed for aries to be basically
>>>>> releasable. There are some bits left and possibly stuff I've
>>>>> missed.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. legal file review. There are a bunch of NOTICE files that
>>>>> claim that
>>>>> work from osgi is included. Really? license and notice files
>>>>> are supposed
>>>>> to apply to what is actually in an artifact or checkout. Are
>>>>> some of our
>>>>> source files copied from an osgi source? Also all the legal
>>>>> files that end
>>>>> up in binary artifacts need to be checked. Also we need to run
>>>>> the rat
>>>>> plugin: this should be configured in the default pom. Not sure
>>>>> if I will
>>>>> get to this.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. actually using the eba-maven-plugn. I'm not entirely sure
>>>>> how to make
>>>>> sure that an eba is working so I didn't mess with this. I think
>>>>> the plugin
>>>>> itself is working well enough to use though.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. ordering dependencies and dependency management. I find it
>>>>> convenient to
>>>>> have these alphabetized so I can find what I'm looking for, but
>>>>> I haven't
>>>>> done this in most poms. I'm not sure why there isn't a usable
>>>>> tool for
>>>>> doing this but I haven't found one. Dull but useful...
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. It would probably be a really good idea to run mvn
>>>>> dependency:analyze and
>>>>> look carefully at the results. The results from this can require
>>>>> interpretation so its best if someone who is very familiar with
>>>>> how the code
>>>>> works does this.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. before a release all snapshots need to be resolved to
>>>>> released versions.
>>>>> I don't know if there are any snapshots.
>>>>>
>>>>> To summarize what I've tried to do:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. default-parent has dependency management for the basic osgi
>>>>> dependencies
>>>>> that all projects are pretty sure to use including the pax stuff
>>>>> used mostly
>>>>> for testing.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. each subproject has legal files in its checkout root
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. each subproject has an scm element in its pom, but no others
>>>>> do.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. each subproject has dependency management for everything
>>>>> included in it.
>>>>> In addition, it has its subprojects listed in dependency
>>>>> management. (this
>>>>> is bent slightly for the samples). This means that
>>>>> (a) modules in a subproject don't need to include versions for
>>>>> use of other
>>>>> modules
>>>>> (b) you can get dependency management for all the modules in a
>>>>> subproject
>>>>> by depending on the subproject pom with scope import. (see the
>>>>> samples pom
>>>>> for an example).
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. As a result of (4), modules don't have any versions in any
>>>>> dependency
>>>>> elements.
>>>>>
>>>>> Release is going to involve...
>>>>>
>>>>> releasing the parent
>>>>
>>>> In trunk/parent I tried:
>>>>
>>>> mvn -DdryRun=true release:prepare -Papache-release
>>>>
>>>> Providing 0.1-incubating for the release version
>>>> Defaulting to parent-0.1-incubating for the SCM release tag
>>>> Defaulting to 0.2-incubating-SNAPSHOT for the new development
>>>> version
>>>>
>>>> then when it builds the 'Top Parent POM' it outputs this:
>>>>
>>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building Aries :: Top Parent POM
>>>> [INFO] [INFO] task-segment: [clean, verify]
>>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [clean:clean]
>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: classpath.resource.loader.class =>
>>>> 'org.codehaus.plexus.velocity.ContextClassLoaderResourceLoader'.
>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: velocimacro.messages.on => 'false'.
>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.loader => 'classpath'.
>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.manager.logwhenfound =>
>>>> 'false'.
>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [remote-resources:process {execution: default}]
>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [site:attach-descriptor]
>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [assembly:single {execution: source-release-
>>>> assembly}]
>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added,
>>>> skipping
>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already
>>>> added, skipping
>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already
>>>> added, skipping
>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building zip:
>>>> C:\cygwin\home\hughesj\oss\aries\trunk\parent\target\parent-1.0.0-
>>>> incubating-SNAPSHOT-source-release.zip
>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added,
>>>> skipping
>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already
>>>> added, skipping
>>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already
>>>> added, skipping
>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Preparing source:jar
>>>> [INFO] [WARNING] Removing: jar from forked lifecycle, to prevent
>>>> recursive invocation.
>>>> [INFO] [INFO] No goals needed for project - skipping
>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [source:jar {execution: attach-sources}]
>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [javadoc:jar {execution: attach-javadocs}]
>>>> [INFO] [INFO] Not executing Javadoc as the project is not a Java
>>>> classpath-capable package
>>>> [INFO] [INFO] [gpg:sign {execution: default}]
>>>>
>>>> so it seems to be outputting 1.0.0 artifacts still. Any ideas?
>>>>
>>>> Then stops at the gpg stage. I thought it would prompt me for my
>>>> key
>>>> passphrase at this point. Do I need gpg-agent to be running?
>>>>
>>>>> updating the parent version wherever it is used (all subproject
>>>>> parents)
>>>>>
>>>>> releasing the subprojects in an appropriate order and updating
>>>>> their
>>>>> versions wherever they are used.
>>>>>
>>>>> It might be worthwhile changing the pom version to 0.1-
>>>>> incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>>> (or something similar, 0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT?) before doing
>>>>> this because
>>>>> then the versions plugin can be used to update use of a
>>>>> subproject to the
>>>>> newly released version of what it uses. Going from
>>>>> 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT to 0.1-incubating won't allow this.
>>>>>
>>>>> As noted in the "root" pom, don't try to release the root pom
>>>>> and don't try
>>>>> release everything at once from the root pom.
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 11:55 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I started looking into cleaning up the build, and of course it
>>>>>> is taking
>>>>>> longer than I expected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm seriously hampered by failing tests in a fresh checkout.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are some projects in application that stop compiling if you
>>>>>> alphabetize the dependencies. It looks like osgi 3 artifacts
>>>>>> are getting on
>>>>>> the maven classpath before osgi 4.2 artifacts. Adding
>>>>>> exclusions to the
>>>>>> dependencies seems to fix it if you can figure out where the
>>>>>> out of date
>>>>>> jars are coming from.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The build is already much closer to a multi-release model than
>>>>>> a single
>>>>>> release model.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've diffed what I have so far and attached it to ARIES-173.
>>>>>> It includes
>>>>>> scm info and a lot of version corrections. Due to the failing
>>>>>> tests I'm not
>>>>>> too comfortable committing it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is anyone else seeing test failures locally?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Lin Sun wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It 'd be great if you are willing to fix these build issues,
>>>>>>> since you
>>>>>>> just went through a big release in Geronimo. :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know the maven release plugin isn't friendly to use some
>>>>>>> cases, so
>>>>>>> it is best we get these resolved to make our release process a
>>>>>>> bit
>>>>>>> easier.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> EBA plugin would be a very nice add-on, if it comes in time
>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lin
>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would like to understand the problems you see better, but
>>>>>>>>> I do not
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> the maven background you guys have, any chance you could
>>>>>>>>> explain what
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> problems are, why they are problems and the solution at some
>>>>>>>>> point?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The biggest immediate problem is that without correct svn
>>>>>>>> info you can't
>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>> a release with the release plugin. I'm pretty sure the way
>>>>>>>> its set up
>>>>>>>> now,
>>>>>>>> when you try, the tag will be under maven's apache pom, not
>>>>>>>> aries.
>>>>>>>> (you'll
>>>>>>>> fail unless you happen to be a maven committer too). You
>>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>> want to try to do a release without the release plugin.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Organizationally there's no way that for instance blueprint,
>>>>>>>> application,
>>>>>>>> and samples should always be released in synchrony. Any time
>>>>>>>> two of
>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>> happen to be ready for release at the same time it will be
>>>>>>>> purely
>>>>>>>> accidental. Right now everyone wants to get a milestone out
>>>>>>>> the door,
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> looking at the different projects their state of completion
>>>>>>>> is pretty
>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>> wildly different. A decision to release all of them at once
>>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>> based in
>>>>>>>> any way on them being equally complete. I'm suggesting that
>>>>>>>> since build
>>>>>>>> fixes are needed anyway, why not set up a maintainable
>>>>>>>> structure that
>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>> continue to work beyond this publicity release. The benefit
>>>>>>>> to users is
>>>>>>>> that aries will be able to release bits in a timely fashion;
>>>>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> entire project will never be in a releasable state at once.
>>>>>>>> (I'm only
>>>>>>>> exaggerating a little bit :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What got me looking at this at all is what look like wild
>>>>>>>> gyrations that
>>>>>>>> don't really use maven properly to get an .eba (or some
>>>>>>>> artifact) out
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> door. This might be ok for one release but (a) I think this
>>>>>>>> can be done
>>>>>>>> directly with the assembly plugin short term and (b) an eba-
>>>>>>>> maven-plugin
>>>>>>>> seems like the obvious more long term solution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm willing to fix the build and probably work on an eba
>>>>>>>> plugin, but
>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>> be sure this is ok with everyone first.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>> Alasdair
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 23 Feb 2010, at 18:18, David Jencks
>>>>>>>>> <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This discussion got me worried enough to take a look at the
>>>>>>>>>> aries
>>>>>>>>>> build.
>>>>>>>>>> Now I'm even more worried.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> While it might feel good to try to push out a release as
>>>>>>>>>> fast as
>>>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>>> I'd prefer to see a sustainable build system in place
>>>>>>>>>> first. So far
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> looks to me as if aries is going to be a bunch of loosely
>>>>>>>>>> coupled
>>>>>>>>>> subprojects. Building them all at once is not going to
>>>>>>>>>> work for long.
>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>> think we should recognize that and put that in the build
>>>>>>>>>> system now.
>>>>>>>>>> To me
>>>>>>>>>> this means:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. a parent pom that isn't at the root of the svn trunk.
>>>>>>>>>> 2. each subproject has pom info sufficient so it can be
>>>>>>>>>> released
>>>>>>>>>> (mostly
>>>>>>>>>> svn info) (right now this is completely missing everywhere
>>>>>>>>>> as far as
>>>>>>>>>> I can
>>>>>>>>>> see, which will result in ares getting tagged into svn as
>>>>>>>>>> part of the
>>>>>>>>>> apache
>>>>>>>>>> pom)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We can still have a "fake" pom that builds everything, but
>>>>>>>>>> it won't be
>>>>>>>>>> part of any release procedure.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Having separately released subprojects does not prevent
>>>>>>>>>> having a
>>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>> vote on all the releases.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd suggest a few other pom tweaks such as using resources
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> filtered-resources to distinguish when filtering is called
>>>>>>>>>> for.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In addition relevant to this particular bit of the thread,
>>>>>>>>>> we need an
>>>>>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin to assemble ebas. Getting this into a
>>>>>>>>>> first release
>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>> be a great idea IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If there's general agreement I can spend some time playing
>>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>> and possibly working on the eba plugin.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 February 2010 13:09, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to see us release the sample applications
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I think
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least one complication. Both Blog Sample and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> AriesTrader
>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> EBAs
>>>>>>>>>>>>> using different techniques - but both leverage the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-antrun-plugin
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally produce a file of type "eba".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I realised the .eba file generated in the blog-assembly
>>>>>>>>>>>> module
>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> being pushed into my local repo. I've made some changes
>>>>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> pom.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>> in ARIES-198 to fix this. So now it uses antrun to create
>>>>>>>>>>>> the .eba
>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact and the build-helper-maven-plugin to push the
>>>>>>>>>>>> artifact to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> local repo. I needed to add NOTICE and LICENSE files to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the .eba for
>>>>>>>>>>>> the ianal plugin in the verify phase to succeed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I've not used the build-helper-maven-plugin before. Do
>>>>>>>>>>> you know if
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> will work with the maven-release-plugin to push the eba
>>>>>>>>>>> artifacts
>>>>>>>>>>> when we do
>>>>>>>>>>> a release? If so, then I should look at using the same
>>>>>>>>>>> mechanism for
>>>>>>>>>>> AriesTrader.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the result is that the eba will not be available
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a maven
>>>>>>>>>>>>> repository.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the differences is that AriesTrader first
>>>>>>>>>>>>> generates a jar
>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-assembly-plugin and then copies this to an eba.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The jar will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> managed by maven and IIUC it should be deployable as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "application"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an extension of "jar" rather than "eba". If that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps delivery of an application jar is an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1st
>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. Unfortunately I haven't actually setup my
>>>>>>>>>>>>> equinox
>>>>>>>>>>>>> assembly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> deploy the eba yet - it still deploys all of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bundles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Using the maven-assembly-plugin likely the preferred
>>>>>>>>>>>> approach long
>>>>>>>>>>>> term. Perhaps we could copy the artifact to .eba and use
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> build-helper-maven-plugin to remove the .jar artifact
>>>>>>>>>>>> from maven
>>>>>>>>>>>> control and add the .eba one?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I can give this a try for AriesTrader. If it doesn't work
>>>>>>>>>>> out - is
>>>>>>>>>>> there anything wrong with the approach I mentioned earlier
>>>>>>>>>>> of just
>>>>>>>>>>> using the
>>>>>>>>>>> jar artifacts rather than the eba artifacts? Will the
>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>>>>> support only look at *.eba archives?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to see at least those included:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * blueprint
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jmx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jndi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * transaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think applications are really usable yet and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looked at JPA yet, so can't tell about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The transaction component is functional and we've been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unchanged since a long time in ServiceMix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any particular concerns with it ? (I'm not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declarative transactions for blueprint, note).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 04:19, Joe Bohn <joebohn@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the response (even while on vacation!) ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be the release manager. Your response helps me get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> picture
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the plans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was really just interested in the general objectives
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and timing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hadn't been discussed yet. To get the release out in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feb means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> delivered next week. I'm afraid the hill might be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steep to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climb that quickly but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The more communication the better. It's important to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and planning along the same lines (or understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quickly if there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences of opinion). Knowing that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release candidate next week means that we should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restrictive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on new content to avoid any unpleasant surprises.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any strong opinions on what should be in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or out -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general it doesn't make sense to release things that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functional.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment I'm not sure what those are - but I suspect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not all of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components are fully functional yet (for example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joe, sorry I started setting myself up tuesday but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am now out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacation until monday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I think the 0.1 release should serve to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get what we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right now in the respectable form the ASF requires.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So 'must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haves'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are to get the build in the right shape to create the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files that are acceptable to the IPMC. I think each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main area of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code deserves at least a README to describe what's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is the first release there are likely a few
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unknowns -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> w.r.t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timing I hope/expect to get the release out this in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feb. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular JIRAs or other issues you feel should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. I'd like to rename the current JIRA version 1.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to 0.1 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues for 0.1 appropriately and issues not for 0.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to target a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.2 version. WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 February 2010 15:39, Joe Bohn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are your current thoughts and goals regarding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target dates?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it would be good if you could summarize your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps on a page in the wiki that we can keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> updated as we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of particular interest would be the content that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first release (clarifying what we consider "must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have" from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have"), the current status of that content, target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dates for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the process that we plan to use to generate the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12 February 2010 09:39, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great, thanks a lot. Let us know if you need any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess if you take some notes, it would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the wiki.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Certainly will. It's been a while since I did one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed quite a bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:32, Jeremy Hughes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <hu...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Kevan, thanks. I volunteer to be release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manager.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 February 2010 16:38, Kevan Miller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ke...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like the consensus is for a release with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version number. Best to start with a simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versioning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I don't view a 0.1 blueprint release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Showing the ability to generate an Apache
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the community. Would definitely like to see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We'll need a release manager. Any volunteers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --kevan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>
>
> --
> Joe
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aries release
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>.
I agree that we should make a global change to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
first. Why wouldn't we just do that now?
Just a heads-up on some other issues related to versions in samples.
There are two potential problems that I am aware of:
1) For both Blog-Sample and AriesTrader there are hard-coded version
references in the Equinox assembly config.ini file which are used to
specify the bundle jars that are to be started for the assembly.
Naturally, the versions of the aries bundles in this file won't be
updated by the maven-release-plugin. I'm not sure of a good solution
for this beyond just manually changing the config.ini files prior to
creating a release candidate.
2) I think there is still an unresolved issue related to Blog-Sample
and how we might be able to demonstrate a bundle upgrade scenario. I'm
not sure if this capability is included yet in Blog-Sample - so it might
still be a non-issue at the moment. However, we had some discussion on
this a week ago or so related to how we might be able to include
multiple versions of components in the sample so that an upgrade
scenario could be demonstrated. If that is still a goal for the 0.1
release we will need to come up with some solution.
Joe
David Jencks wrote:
> I think everything is ok.... I think (at least with dryRun=true) that
> the release plugin builds the project first as-is and checks that
> signing etc works.
>
> I added autoVersionSubmodules=true in the root parent pom which will
> make things work more smoothly :-)
>
> I really recommend changing the version to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
> first, I'm happy to do this if you want.
>
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Mar 2, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>
>> scratch that. I'm working thru this:
>> http://maven.apache.org/developers/release/apache-release.html as
>> there's several steps I haven't done.
>>
>> On 2 March 2010 16:17, Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On 2 March 2010 02:28, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> I've done most of what I think is needed for aries to be basically
>>>> releasable. There are some bits left and possibly stuff I've missed.
>>>>
>>>> 1. legal file review. There are a bunch of NOTICE files that claim
>>>> that
>>>> work from osgi is included. Really? license and notice files are
>>>> supposed
>>>> to apply to what is actually in an artifact or checkout. Are some
>>>> of our
>>>> source files copied from an osgi source? Also all the legal files
>>>> that end
>>>> up in binary artifacts need to be checked. Also we need to run the rat
>>>> plugin: this should be configured in the default pom. Not sure if I
>>>> will
>>>> get to this.
>>>>
>>>> 2. actually using the eba-maven-plugn. I'm not entirely sure how to
>>>> make
>>>> sure that an eba is working so I didn't mess with this. I think the
>>>> plugin
>>>> itself is working well enough to use though.
>>>>
>>>> 2. ordering dependencies and dependency management. I find it
>>>> convenient to
>>>> have these alphabetized so I can find what I'm looking for, but I
>>>> haven't
>>>> done this in most poms. I'm not sure why there isn't a usable tool for
>>>> doing this but I haven't found one. Dull but useful...
>>>>
>>>> 3. It would probably be a really good idea to run mvn
>>>> dependency:analyze and
>>>> look carefully at the results. The results from this can require
>>>> interpretation so its best if someone who is very familiar with how
>>>> the code
>>>> works does this.
>>>>
>>>> 4. before a release all snapshots need to be resolved to released
>>>> versions.
>>>> I don't know if there are any snapshots.
>>>>
>>>> To summarize what I've tried to do:
>>>>
>>>> 1. default-parent has dependency management for the basic osgi
>>>> dependencies
>>>> that all projects are pretty sure to use including the pax stuff
>>>> used mostly
>>>> for testing.
>>>>
>>>> 2. each subproject has legal files in its checkout root
>>>>
>>>> 3. each subproject has an scm element in its pom, but no others do.
>>>>
>>>> 4. each subproject has dependency management for everything included
>>>> in it.
>>>> In addition, it has its subprojects listed in dependency
>>>> management. (this
>>>> is bent slightly for the samples). This means that
>>>> (a) modules in a subproject don't need to include versions for use
>>>> of other
>>>> modules
>>>> (b) you can get dependency management for all the modules in a
>>>> subproject
>>>> by depending on the subproject pom with scope import. (see the
>>>> samples pom
>>>> for an example).
>>>>
>>>> 5. As a result of (4), modules don't have any versions in any
>>>> dependency
>>>> elements.
>>>>
>>>> Release is going to involve...
>>>>
>>>> releasing the parent
>>>
>>> In trunk/parent I tried:
>>>
>>> mvn -DdryRun=true release:prepare -Papache-release
>>>
>>> Providing 0.1-incubating for the release version
>>> Defaulting to parent-0.1-incubating for the SCM release tag
>>> Defaulting to 0.2-incubating-SNAPSHOT for the new development version
>>>
>>> then when it builds the 'Top Parent POM' it outputs this:
>>>
>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building Aries :: Top Parent POM
>>> [INFO] [INFO] task-segment: [clean, verify]
>>> [INFO] [INFO]
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> [INFO] [INFO] [clean:clean]
>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: classpath.resource.loader.class =>
>>> 'org.codehaus.plexus.velocity.ContextClassLoaderResourceLoader'.
>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: velocimacro.messages.on => 'false'.
>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.loader => 'classpath'.
>>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.manager.logwhenfound =>
>>> 'false'.
>>> [INFO] [INFO] [remote-resources:process {execution: default}]
>>> [INFO] [INFO] [site:attach-descriptor]
>>> [INFO] [INFO] [assembly:single {execution: source-release-assembly}]
>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added, skipping
>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already added,
>>> skipping
>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already added,
>>> skipping
>>> [INFO] [INFO] Building zip:
>>> C:\cygwin\home\hughesj\oss\aries\trunk\parent\target\parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-source-release.zip
>>>
>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added, skipping
>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already added,
>>> skipping
>>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already added,
>>> skipping
>>> [INFO] [INFO] Preparing source:jar
>>> [INFO] [WARNING] Removing: jar from forked lifecycle, to prevent
>>> recursive invocation.
>>> [INFO] [INFO] No goals needed for project - skipping
>>> [INFO] [INFO] [source:jar {execution: attach-sources}]
>>> [INFO] [INFO] [javadoc:jar {execution: attach-javadocs}]
>>> [INFO] [INFO] Not executing Javadoc as the project is not a Java
>>> classpath-capable package
>>> [INFO] [INFO] [gpg:sign {execution: default}]
>>>
>>> so it seems to be outputting 1.0.0 artifacts still. Any ideas?
>>>
>>> Then stops at the gpg stage. I thought it would prompt me for my key
>>> passphrase at this point. Do I need gpg-agent to be running?
>>>
>>>> updating the parent version wherever it is used (all subproject
>>>> parents)
>>>>
>>>> releasing the subprojects in an appropriate order and updating their
>>>> versions wherever they are used.
>>>>
>>>> It might be worthwhile changing the pom version to
>>>> 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>>> (or something similar, 0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT?) before doing this
>>>> because
>>>> then the versions plugin can be used to update use of a subproject
>>>> to the
>>>> newly released version of what it uses. Going from
>>>> 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT to 0.1-incubating won't allow this.
>>>>
>>>> As noted in the "root" pom, don't try to release the root pom and
>>>> don't try
>>>> release everything at once from the root pom.
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 11:55 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I started looking into cleaning up the build, and of course it is
>>>>> taking
>>>>> longer than I expected.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm seriously hampered by failing tests in a fresh checkout.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are some projects in application that stop compiling if you
>>>>> alphabetize the dependencies. It looks like osgi 3 artifacts are
>>>>> getting on
>>>>> the maven classpath before osgi 4.2 artifacts. Adding exclusions
>>>>> to the
>>>>> dependencies seems to fix it if you can figure out where the out of
>>>>> date
>>>>> jars are coming from.
>>>>>
>>>>> The build is already much closer to a multi-release model than a
>>>>> single
>>>>> release model.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've diffed what I have so far and attached it to ARIES-173. It
>>>>> includes
>>>>> scm info and a lot of version corrections. Due to the failing
>>>>> tests I'm not
>>>>> too comfortable committing it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is anyone else seeing test failures locally?
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Lin Sun wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It 'd be great if you are willing to fix these build issues, since
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> just went through a big release in Geronimo. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know the maven release plugin isn't friendly to use some cases, so
>>>>>> it is best we get these resolved to make our release process a bit
>>>>>> easier.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> EBA plugin would be a very nice add-on, if it comes in time with the
>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lin
>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, David Jencks
>>>>>> <da...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would like to understand the problems you see better, but I do
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> the maven background you guys have, any chance you could explain
>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> problems are, why they are problems and the solution at some point?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The biggest immediate problem is that without correct svn info
>>>>>>> you can't
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>> a release with the release plugin. I'm pretty sure the way its
>>>>>>> set up
>>>>>>> now,
>>>>>>> when you try, the tag will be under maven's apache pom, not aries.
>>>>>>> (you'll
>>>>>>> fail unless you happen to be a maven committer too). You definitely
>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>> want to try to do a release without the release plugin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Organizationally there's no way that for instance blueprint,
>>>>>>> application,
>>>>>>> and samples should always be released in synchrony. Any time two of
>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>> happen to be ready for release at the same time it will be purely
>>>>>>> accidental. Right now everyone wants to get a milestone out the
>>>>>>> door,
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> looking at the different projects their state of completion is
>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>> wildly different. A decision to release all of them at once is not
>>>>>>> based in
>>>>>>> any way on them being equally complete. I'm suggesting that
>>>>>>> since build
>>>>>>> fixes are needed anyway, why not set up a maintainable structure
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> continue to work beyond this publicity release. The benefit to
>>>>>>> users is
>>>>>>> that aries will be able to release bits in a timely fashion;
>>>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> entire project will never be in a releasable state at once. (I'm
>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>> exaggerating a little bit :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What got me looking at this at all is what look like wild
>>>>>>> gyrations that
>>>>>>> don't really use maven properly to get an .eba (or some artifact)
>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> door. This might be ok for one release but (a) I think this can
>>>>>>> be done
>>>>>>> directly with the assembly plugin short term and (b) an
>>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin
>>>>>>> seems like the obvious more long term solution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm willing to fix the build and probably work on an eba plugin, but
>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>> be sure this is ok with everyone first.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>> Alasdair
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 23 Feb 2010, at 18:18, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This discussion got me worried enough to take a look at the aries
>>>>>>>>> build.
>>>>>>>>> Now I'm even more worried.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> While it might feel good to try to push out a release as fast as
>>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>> I'd prefer to see a sustainable build system in place first.
>>>>>>>>> So far
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> looks to me as if aries is going to be a bunch of loosely coupled
>>>>>>>>> subprojects. Building them all at once is not going to work
>>>>>>>>> for long.
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> think we should recognize that and put that in the build system
>>>>>>>>> now.
>>>>>>>>> To me
>>>>>>>>> this means:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. a parent pom that isn't at the root of the svn trunk.
>>>>>>>>> 2. each subproject has pom info sufficient so it can be released
>>>>>>>>> (mostly
>>>>>>>>> svn info) (right now this is completely missing everywhere as
>>>>>>>>> far as
>>>>>>>>> I can
>>>>>>>>> see, which will result in ares getting tagged into svn as part
>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>> apache
>>>>>>>>> pom)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We can still have a "fake" pom that builds everything, but it
>>>>>>>>> won't be
>>>>>>>>> part of any release procedure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Having separately released subprojects does not prevent having a
>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>> vote on all the releases.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd suggest a few other pom tweaks such as using resources and
>>>>>>>>> filtered-resources to distinguish when filtering is called for.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In addition relevant to this particular bit of the thread, we
>>>>>>>>> need an
>>>>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin to assemble ebas. Getting this into a first
>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> be a great idea IMO.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If there's general agreement I can spend some time playing with
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>> and possibly working on the eba plugin.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 February 2010 13:09, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to see us release the sample applications but
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think
>>>>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>>>>> at least one complication. Both Blog Sample and AriesTrader
>>>>>>>>>>>> generate
>>>>>>>>>>>> EBAs
>>>>>>>>>>>> using different techniques - but both leverage the
>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-antrun-plugin
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> finally produce a file of type "eba".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I realised the .eba file generated in the blog-assembly module
>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>>>>>>> being pushed into my local repo. I've made some changes to the
>>>>>>>>>>> pom.xml
>>>>>>>>>>> in ARIES-198 to fix this. So now it uses antrun to create the
>>>>>>>>>>> .eba
>>>>>>>>>>> artifact and the build-helper-maven-plugin to push the
>>>>>>>>>>> artifact to
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> local repo. I needed to add NOTICE and LICENSE files to the
>>>>>>>>>>> .eba for
>>>>>>>>>>> the ianal plugin in the verify phase to succeed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've not used the build-helper-maven-plugin before. Do you
>>>>>>>>>> know if
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> will work with the maven-release-plugin to push the eba artifacts
>>>>>>>>>> when we do
>>>>>>>>>> a release? If so, then I should look at using the same
>>>>>>>>>> mechanism for
>>>>>>>>>> AriesTrader.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the result is that the eba will not be available in
>>>>>>>>>>>> a maven
>>>>>>>>>>>> repository.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the differences is that AriesTrader first generates a
>>>>>>>>>>>> jar
>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> maven-assembly-plugin and then copies this to an eba. The
>>>>>>>>>>>> jar will
>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> managed by maven and IIUC it should be deployable as an
>>>>>>>>>>>> "application"
>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>> with an extension of "jar" rather than "eba". If that is
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps delivery of an application jar is an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1st
>>>>>>>>>>>> release. Unfortunately I haven't actually setup my equinox
>>>>>>>>>>>> assembly
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> deploy the eba yet - it still deploys all of the individual
>>>>>>>>>>>> bundles.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Using the maven-assembly-plugin likely the preferred approach
>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>> term. Perhaps we could copy the artifact to .eba and use the
>>>>>>>>>>> build-helper-maven-plugin to remove the .jar artifact from maven
>>>>>>>>>>> control and add the .eba one?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can give this a try for AriesTrader. If it doesn't work out
>>>>>>>>>> - is
>>>>>>>>>> there anything wrong with the approach I mentioned earlier of
>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>> using the
>>>>>>>>>> jar artifacts rather than the eba artifacts? Will the current
>>>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>>>> support only look at *.eba archives?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to see at least those included:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * blueprint
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jmx
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * jndi
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * transaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think applications are really usable yet and I haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>> looked at JPA yet, so can't tell about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The transaction component is functional and we've been
>>>>>>>>>>>>> using it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unchanged since a long time in ServiceMix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any particular concerns with it ? (I'm not talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> declarative transactions for blueprint, note).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 04:19, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the response (even while on vacation!) ... and for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be the release manager. Your response helps me get a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> picture
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the plans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was really just interested in the general objectives and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hadn't been discussed yet. To get the release out in Feb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> delivered next week. I'm afraid the hill might be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steep to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climb that quickly but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The more communication the better. It's important to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and planning along the same lines (or understand quickly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences of opinion). Knowing that you are thinking of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release candidate next week means that we should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restrictive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on new content to avoid any unpleasant surprises.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any strong opinions on what should be in or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general it doesn't make sense to release things that aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functional.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment I'm not sure what those are - but I suspect not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components are fully functional yet (for example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joe, sorry I started setting myself up tuesday but am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacation until monday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I think the 0.1 release should serve to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right now in the respectable form the ASF requires. So 'must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haves'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are to get the build in the right shape to create the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files that are acceptable to the IPMC. I think each main
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> area of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code deserves at least a README to describe what's possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is the first release there are likely a few unknowns -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> w.r.t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timing I hope/expect to get the release out this in feb. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular JIRAs or other issues you feel should be included
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. I'd like to rename the current JIRA version 1.0 to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues for 0.1 appropriately and issues not for 0.1 to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.2 version. WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 February 2010 15:39, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are your current thoughts and goals regarding the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target dates?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it would be good if you could summarize your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps on a page in the wiki that we can keep updated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of particular interest would be the content that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first release (clarifying what we consider "must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have" from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have"), the current status of that content, target dates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the process that we plan to use to generate the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12 February 2010 09:39, Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <gn...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great, thanks a lot. Let us know if you need any help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess if you take some notes, it would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the wiki.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Certainly will. It's been a while since I did one and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed quite a bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:32, Jeremy Hughes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <hu...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Kevan, thanks. I volunteer to be release manager.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 February 2010 16:38, Kevan Miller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ke...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like the consensus is for a release with all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version number. Best to start with a simple versioning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I don't view a 0.1 blueprint release as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Showing the ability to generate an Apache release is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the community. Would definitely like to see this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We'll need a release manager. Any volunteers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --kevan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
--
Joe
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aries release
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
I think everything is ok.... I think (at least with dryRun=true) that
the release plugin builds the project first as-is and checks that
signing etc works.
I added autoVersionSubmodules=true in the root parent pom which will
make things work more smoothly :-)
I really recommend changing the version to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
first, I'm happy to do this if you want.
thanks
david jencks
On Mar 2, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
> scratch that. I'm working thru this:
> http://maven.apache.org/developers/release/apache-release.html as
> there's several steps I haven't done.
>
> On 2 March 2010 16:17, Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On 2 March 2010 02:28, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I've done most of what I think is needed for aries to be basically
>>> releasable. There are some bits left and possibly stuff I've
>>> missed.
>>>
>>> 1. legal file review. There are a bunch of NOTICE files that
>>> claim that
>>> work from osgi is included. Really? license and notice files are
>>> supposed
>>> to apply to what is actually in an artifact or checkout. Are some
>>> of our
>>> source files copied from an osgi source? Also all the legal files
>>> that end
>>> up in binary artifacts need to be checked. Also we need to run
>>> the rat
>>> plugin: this should be configured in the default pom. Not sure if
>>> I will
>>> get to this.
>>>
>>> 2. actually using the eba-maven-plugn. I'm not entirely sure how
>>> to make
>>> sure that an eba is working so I didn't mess with this. I think
>>> the plugin
>>> itself is working well enough to use though.
>>>
>>> 2. ordering dependencies and dependency management. I find it
>>> convenient to
>>> have these alphabetized so I can find what I'm looking for, but I
>>> haven't
>>> done this in most poms. I'm not sure why there isn't a usable
>>> tool for
>>> doing this but I haven't found one. Dull but useful...
>>>
>>> 3. It would probably be a really good idea to run mvn
>>> dependency:analyze and
>>> look carefully at the results. The results from this can require
>>> interpretation so its best if someone who is very familiar with
>>> how the code
>>> works does this.
>>>
>>> 4. before a release all snapshots need to be resolved to released
>>> versions.
>>> I don't know if there are any snapshots.
>>>
>>> To summarize what I've tried to do:
>>>
>>> 1. default-parent has dependency management for the basic osgi
>>> dependencies
>>> that all projects are pretty sure to use including the pax stuff
>>> used mostly
>>> for testing.
>>>
>>> 2. each subproject has legal files in its checkout root
>>>
>>> 3. each subproject has an scm element in its pom, but no others do.
>>>
>>> 4. each subproject has dependency management for everything
>>> included in it.
>>> In addition, it has its subprojects listed in dependency
>>> management. (this
>>> is bent slightly for the samples). This means that
>>> (a) modules in a subproject don't need to include versions for
>>> use of other
>>> modules
>>> (b) you can get dependency management for all the modules in a
>>> subproject
>>> by depending on the subproject pom with scope import. (see the
>>> samples pom
>>> for an example).
>>>
>>> 5. As a result of (4), modules don't have any versions in any
>>> dependency
>>> elements.
>>>
>>> Release is going to involve...
>>>
>>> releasing the parent
>>
>> In trunk/parent I tried:
>>
>> mvn -DdryRun=true release:prepare -Papache-release
>>
>> Providing 0.1-incubating for the release version
>> Defaulting to parent-0.1-incubating for the SCM release tag
>> Defaulting to 0.2-incubating-SNAPSHOT for the new development version
>>
>> then when it builds the 'Top Parent POM' it outputs this:
>>
>> [INFO] [INFO]
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> [INFO] [INFO] Building Aries :: Top Parent POM
>> [INFO] [INFO] task-segment: [clean, verify]
>> [INFO] [INFO]
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> [INFO] [INFO] [clean:clean]
>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: classpath.resource.loader.class =>
>> 'org.codehaus.plexus.velocity.ContextClassLoaderResourceLoader'.
>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: velocimacro.messages.on => 'false'.
>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.loader => 'classpath'.
>> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.manager.logwhenfound =>
>> 'false'.
>> [INFO] [INFO] [remote-resources:process {execution: default}]
>> [INFO] [INFO] [site:attach-descriptor]
>> [INFO] [INFO] [assembly:single {execution: source-release-assembly}]
>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added,
>> skipping
>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already
>> added, skipping
>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already
>> added, skipping
>> [INFO] [INFO] Building zip:
>> C:\cygwin\home\hughesj\oss\aries\trunk\parent\target\parent-1.0.0-
>> incubating-SNAPSHOT-source-release.zip
>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added,
>> skipping
>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already
>> added, skipping
>> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already
>> added, skipping
>> [INFO] [INFO] Preparing source:jar
>> [INFO] [WARNING] Removing: jar from forked lifecycle, to prevent
>> recursive invocation.
>> [INFO] [INFO] No goals needed for project - skipping
>> [INFO] [INFO] [source:jar {execution: attach-sources}]
>> [INFO] [INFO] [javadoc:jar {execution: attach-javadocs}]
>> [INFO] [INFO] Not executing Javadoc as the project is not a Java
>> classpath-capable package
>> [INFO] [INFO] [gpg:sign {execution: default}]
>>
>> so it seems to be outputting 1.0.0 artifacts still. Any ideas?
>>
>> Then stops at the gpg stage. I thought it would prompt me for my key
>> passphrase at this point. Do I need gpg-agent to be running?
>>
>>> updating the parent version wherever it is used (all subproject
>>> parents)
>>>
>>> releasing the subprojects in an appropriate order and updating their
>>> versions wherever they are used.
>>>
>>> It might be worthwhile changing the pom version to 0.1-incubating-
>>> SNAPSHOT
>>> (or something similar, 0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT?) before doing this
>>> because
>>> then the versions plugin can be used to update use of a subproject
>>> to the
>>> newly released version of what it uses. Going from
>>> 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT to 0.1-incubating won't allow this.
>>>
>>> As noted in the "root" pom, don't try to release the root pom and
>>> don't try
>>> release everything at once from the root pom.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 11:55 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>
>>>> I started looking into cleaning up the build, and of course it is
>>>> taking
>>>> longer than I expected.
>>>>
>>>> I'm seriously hampered by failing tests in a fresh checkout.
>>>>
>>>> There are some projects in application that stop compiling if you
>>>> alphabetize the dependencies. It looks like osgi 3 artifacts are
>>>> getting on
>>>> the maven classpath before osgi 4.2 artifacts. Adding exclusions
>>>> to the
>>>> dependencies seems to fix it if you can figure out where the out
>>>> of date
>>>> jars are coming from.
>>>>
>>>> The build is already much closer to a multi-release model than a
>>>> single
>>>> release model.
>>>>
>>>> I've diffed what I have so far and attached it to ARIES-173. It
>>>> includes
>>>> scm info and a lot of version corrections. Due to the failing
>>>> tests I'm not
>>>> too comfortable committing it.
>>>>
>>>> Is anyone else seeing test failures locally?
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Lin Sun wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>
>>>>> It 'd be great if you are willing to fix these build issues,
>>>>> since you
>>>>> just went through a big release in Geronimo. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> I know the maven release plugin isn't friendly to use some
>>>>> cases, so
>>>>> it is best we get these resolved to make our release process a bit
>>>>> easier.
>>>>>
>>>>> EBA plugin would be a very nice add-on, if it comes in time with
>>>>> the
>>>>> release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Lin
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com
>>>>> >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like to understand the problems you see better, but I
>>>>>>> do not
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> the maven background you guys have, any chance you could
>>>>>>> explain what
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> problems are, why they are problems and the solution at some
>>>>>>> point?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The biggest immediate problem is that without correct svn info
>>>>>> you can't
>>>>>> do
>>>>>> a release with the release plugin. I'm pretty sure the way its
>>>>>> set up
>>>>>> now,
>>>>>> when you try, the tag will be under maven's apache pom, not
>>>>>> aries.
>>>>>> (you'll
>>>>>> fail unless you happen to be a maven committer too). You
>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>> want to try to do a release without the release plugin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Organizationally there's no way that for instance blueprint,
>>>>>> application,
>>>>>> and samples should always be released in synchrony. Any time
>>>>>> two of
>>>>>> them
>>>>>> happen to be ready for release at the same time it will be purely
>>>>>> accidental. Right now everyone wants to get a milestone out
>>>>>> the door,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> looking at the different projects their state of completion is
>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>> much
>>>>>> wildly different. A decision to release all of them at once is
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> based in
>>>>>> any way on them being equally complete. I'm suggesting that
>>>>>> since build
>>>>>> fixes are needed anyway, why not set up a maintainable
>>>>>> structure that
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> continue to work beyond this publicity release. The benefit to
>>>>>> users is
>>>>>> that aries will be able to release bits in a timely fashion;
>>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> entire project will never be in a releasable state at once.
>>>>>> (I'm only
>>>>>> exaggerating a little bit :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What got me looking at this at all is what look like wild
>>>>>> gyrations that
>>>>>> don't really use maven properly to get an .eba (or some
>>>>>> artifact) out
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> door. This might be ok for one release but (a) I think this
>>>>>> can be done
>>>>>> directly with the assembly plugin short term and (b) an eba-
>>>>>> maven-plugin
>>>>>> seems like the obvious more long term solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm willing to fix the build and probably work on an eba
>>>>>> plugin, but
>>>>>> want to
>>>>>> be sure this is ok with everyone first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>> Alasdair
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 23 Feb 2010, at 18:18, David Jencks
>>>>>>> <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This discussion got me worried enough to take a look at the
>>>>>>>> aries
>>>>>>>> build.
>>>>>>>> Now I'm even more worried.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While it might feel good to try to push out a release as fast
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>> I'd prefer to see a sustainable build system in place first.
>>>>>>>> So far
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> looks to me as if aries is going to be a bunch of loosely
>>>>>>>> coupled
>>>>>>>> subprojects. Building them all at once is not going to work
>>>>>>>> for long.
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> think we should recognize that and put that in the build
>>>>>>>> system now.
>>>>>>>> To me
>>>>>>>> this means:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. a parent pom that isn't at the root of the svn trunk.
>>>>>>>> 2. each subproject has pom info sufficient so it can be
>>>>>>>> released
>>>>>>>> (mostly
>>>>>>>> svn info) (right now this is completely missing everywhere
>>>>>>>> as far as
>>>>>>>> I can
>>>>>>>> see, which will result in ares getting tagged into svn as
>>>>>>>> part of the
>>>>>>>> apache
>>>>>>>> pom)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We can still have a "fake" pom that builds everything, but it
>>>>>>>> won't be
>>>>>>>> part of any release procedure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Having separately released subprojects does not prevent
>>>>>>>> having a
>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>> vote on all the releases.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd suggest a few other pom tweaks such as using resources and
>>>>>>>> filtered-resources to distinguish when filtering is called for.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In addition relevant to this particular bit of the thread, we
>>>>>>>> need an
>>>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin to assemble ebas. Getting this into a first
>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> be a great idea IMO.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If there's general agreement I can spend some time playing
>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>> and possibly working on the eba plugin.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 19 February 2010 13:09, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to see us release the sample applications
>>>>>>>>>>> but I think
>>>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>>>> at least one complication. Both Blog Sample and AriesTrader
>>>>>>>>>>> generate
>>>>>>>>>>> EBAs
>>>>>>>>>>> using different techniques - but both leverage the
>>>>>>>>>>> maven-antrun-plugin
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> finally produce a file of type "eba".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I realised the .eba file generated in the blog-assembly
>>>>>>>>>> module
>>>>>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>>>>>> being pushed into my local repo. I've made some changes to
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> pom.xml
>>>>>>>>>> in ARIES-198 to fix this. So now it uses antrun to create
>>>>>>>>>> the .eba
>>>>>>>>>> artifact and the build-helper-maven-plugin to push the
>>>>>>>>>> artifact to
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> local repo. I needed to add NOTICE and LICENSE files to
>>>>>>>>>> the .eba for
>>>>>>>>>> the ianal plugin in the verify phase to succeed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've not used the build-helper-maven-plugin before. Do you
>>>>>>>>> know if
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> will work with the maven-release-plugin to push the eba
>>>>>>>>> artifacts
>>>>>>>>> when we do
>>>>>>>>> a release? If so, then I should look at using the same
>>>>>>>>> mechanism for
>>>>>>>>> AriesTrader.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think the result is that the eba will not be available
>>>>>>>>>>> in a maven
>>>>>>>>>>> repository.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One of the differences is that AriesTrader first generates
>>>>>>>>>>> a jar
>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> maven-assembly-plugin and then copies this to an eba. The
>>>>>>>>>>> jar will
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> managed by maven and IIUC it should be deployable as an
>>>>>>>>>>> "application"
>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>> with an extension of "jar" rather than "eba". If that is
>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps delivery of an application jar is an acceptable
>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> the 1st
>>>>>>>>>>> release. Unfortunately I haven't actually setup my equinox
>>>>>>>>>>> assembly
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> deploy the eba yet - it still deploys all of the individual
>>>>>>>>>>> bundles.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Using the maven-assembly-plugin likely the preferred
>>>>>>>>>> approach long
>>>>>>>>>> term. Perhaps we could copy the artifact to .eba and use the
>>>>>>>>>> build-helper-maven-plugin to remove the .jar artifact from
>>>>>>>>>> maven
>>>>>>>>>> control and add the .eba one?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can give this a try for AriesTrader. If it doesn't work
>>>>>>>>> out - is
>>>>>>>>> there anything wrong with the approach I mentioned earlier
>>>>>>>>> of just
>>>>>>>>> using the
>>>>>>>>> jar artifacts rather than the eba artifacts? Will the current
>>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>>> support only look at *.eba archives?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to see at least those included:
>>>>>>>>>>>> * blueprint
>>>>>>>>>>>> * jmx
>>>>>>>>>>>> * jndi
>>>>>>>>>>>> * transaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think applications are really usable yet and I
>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>> looked at JPA yet, so can't tell about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The transaction component is functional and we've been
>>>>>>>>>>>> using it
>>>>>>>>>>>> mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>> unchanged since a long time in ServiceMix.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any particular concerns with it ? (I'm not
>>>>>>>>>>>> talking
>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>> declarative transactions for blueprint, note).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 04:19, Joe Bohn
>>>>>>>>>>>> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the response (even while on vacation!) ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteering
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be the release manager. Your response helps me get a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>> picture
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the plans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was really just interested in the general objectives
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and timing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hadn't been discussed yet. To get the release out in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feb means
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> delivered next week. I'm afraid the hill might be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> little too
>>>>>>>>>>>>> steep to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> climb that quickly but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The more communication the better. It's important to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and planning along the same lines (or understand quickly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences of opinion). Knowing that you are thinking of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> creating
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> release candidate next week means that we should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting more
>>>>>>>>>>>>> restrictive
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on new content to avoid any unpleasant surprises.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any strong opinions on what should be in or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> out -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> general it doesn't make sense to release things that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> functional.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment I'm not sure what those are - but I suspect
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not all of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> components are fully functional yet (for example
>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joe, sorry I started setting myself up tuesday but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am now out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacation until monday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I think the 0.1 release should serve to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right now in the respectable form the ASF requires. So
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haves'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are to get the build in the right shape to create the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files that are acceptable to the IPMC. I think each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main area of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code deserves at least a README to describe what's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is the first release there are likely a few
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unknowns -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> w.r.t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timing I hope/expect to get the release out this in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feb. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular JIRAs or other issues you feel should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. I'd like to rename the current JIRA version 1.0 to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues for 0.1 appropriately and issues not for 0.1 to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.2 version. WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 February 2010 15:39, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are your current thoughts and goals regarding the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target dates?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it would be good if you could summarize your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps on a page in the wiki that we can keep updated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of particular interest would be the content that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first release (clarifying what we consider "must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have" from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have"), the current status of that content, target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dates for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the process that we plan to use to generate the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12 February 2010 09:39, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great, thanks a lot. Let us know if you need any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess if you take some notes, it would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the wiki.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Certainly will. It's been a while since I did one and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed quite a bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:32, Jeremy Hughes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <hu...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Kevan, thanks. I volunteer to be release manager.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 February 2010 16:38, Kevan Miller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ke...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like the consensus is for a release with all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version number. Best to start with a simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versioning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I don't view a 0.1 blueprint release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Showing the ability to generate an Apache release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the community. Would definitely like to see this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We'll need a release manager. Any volunteers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --kevan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aries release
Posted by Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org>.
scratch that. I'm working thru this:
http://maven.apache.org/developers/release/apache-release.html as
there's several steps I haven't done.
On 2 March 2010 16:17, Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 2 March 2010 02:28, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I've done most of what I think is needed for aries to be basically
>> releasable. There are some bits left and possibly stuff I've missed.
>>
>> 1. legal file review. There are a bunch of NOTICE files that claim that
>> work from osgi is included. Really? license and notice files are supposed
>> to apply to what is actually in an artifact or checkout. Are some of our
>> source files copied from an osgi source? Also all the legal files that end
>> up in binary artifacts need to be checked. Also we need to run the rat
>> plugin: this should be configured in the default pom. Not sure if I will
>> get to this.
>>
>> 2. actually using the eba-maven-plugn. I'm not entirely sure how to make
>> sure that an eba is working so I didn't mess with this. I think the plugin
>> itself is working well enough to use though.
>>
>> 2. ordering dependencies and dependency management. I find it convenient to
>> have these alphabetized so I can find what I'm looking for, but I haven't
>> done this in most poms. I'm not sure why there isn't a usable tool for
>> doing this but I haven't found one. Dull but useful...
>>
>> 3. It would probably be a really good idea to run mvn dependency:analyze and
>> look carefully at the results. The results from this can require
>> interpretation so its best if someone who is very familiar with how the code
>> works does this.
>>
>> 4. before a release all snapshots need to be resolved to released versions.
>> I don't know if there are any snapshots.
>>
>> To summarize what I've tried to do:
>>
>> 1. default-parent has dependency management for the basic osgi dependencies
>> that all projects are pretty sure to use including the pax stuff used mostly
>> for testing.
>>
>> 2. each subproject has legal files in its checkout root
>>
>> 3. each subproject has an scm element in its pom, but no others do.
>>
>> 4. each subproject has dependency management for everything included in it.
>> In addition, it has its subprojects listed in dependency management. (this
>> is bent slightly for the samples). This means that
>> (a) modules in a subproject don't need to include versions for use of other
>> modules
>> (b) you can get dependency management for all the modules in a subproject
>> by depending on the subproject pom with scope import. (see the samples pom
>> for an example).
>>
>> 5. As a result of (4), modules don't have any versions in any dependency
>> elements.
>>
>> Release is going to involve...
>>
>> releasing the parent
>
> In trunk/parent I tried:
>
> mvn -DdryRun=true release:prepare -Papache-release
>
> Providing 0.1-incubating for the release version
> Defaulting to parent-0.1-incubating for the SCM release tag
> Defaulting to 0.2-incubating-SNAPSHOT for the new development version
>
> then when it builds the 'Top Parent POM' it outputs this:
>
> [INFO] [INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [INFO] [INFO] Building Aries :: Top Parent POM
> [INFO] [INFO] task-segment: [clean, verify]
> [INFO] [INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [INFO] [INFO] [clean:clean]
> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: classpath.resource.loader.class =>
> 'org.codehaus.plexus.velocity.ContextClassLoaderResourceLoader'.
> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: velocimacro.messages.on => 'false'.
> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.loader => 'classpath'.
> [INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.manager.logwhenfound => 'false'.
> [INFO] [INFO] [remote-resources:process {execution: default}]
> [INFO] [INFO] [site:attach-descriptor]
> [INFO] [INFO] [assembly:single {execution: source-release-assembly}]
> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added, skipping
> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already added, skipping
> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already added, skipping
> [INFO] [INFO] Building zip:
> C:\cygwin\home\hughesj\oss\aries\trunk\parent\target\parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-source-release.zip
> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added, skipping
> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already added, skipping
> [INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already added, skipping
> [INFO] [INFO] Preparing source:jar
> [INFO] [WARNING] Removing: jar from forked lifecycle, to prevent
> recursive invocation.
> [INFO] [INFO] No goals needed for project - skipping
> [INFO] [INFO] [source:jar {execution: attach-sources}]
> [INFO] [INFO] [javadoc:jar {execution: attach-javadocs}]
> [INFO] [INFO] Not executing Javadoc as the project is not a Java
> classpath-capable package
> [INFO] [INFO] [gpg:sign {execution: default}]
>
> so it seems to be outputting 1.0.0 artifacts still. Any ideas?
>
> Then stops at the gpg stage. I thought it would prompt me for my key
> passphrase at this point. Do I need gpg-agent to be running?
>
>> updating the parent version wherever it is used (all subproject parents)
>>
>> releasing the subprojects in an appropriate order and updating their
>> versions wherever they are used.
>>
>> It might be worthwhile changing the pom version to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
>> (or something similar, 0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT?) before doing this because
>> then the versions plugin can be used to update use of a subproject to the
>> newly released version of what it uses. Going from
>> 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT to 0.1-incubating won't allow this.
>>
>> As noted in the "root" pom, don't try to release the root pom and don't try
>> release everything at once from the root pom.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 11:55 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>
>>> I started looking into cleaning up the build, and of course it is taking
>>> longer than I expected.
>>>
>>> I'm seriously hampered by failing tests in a fresh checkout.
>>>
>>> There are some projects in application that stop compiling if you
>>> alphabetize the dependencies. It looks like osgi 3 artifacts are getting on
>>> the maven classpath before osgi 4.2 artifacts. Adding exclusions to the
>>> dependencies seems to fix it if you can figure out where the out of date
>>> jars are coming from.
>>>
>>> The build is already much closer to a multi-release model than a single
>>> release model.
>>>
>>> I've diffed what I have so far and attached it to ARIES-173. It includes
>>> scm info and a lot of version corrections. Due to the failing tests I'm not
>>> too comfortable committing it.
>>>
>>> Is anyone else seeing test failures locally?
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Lin Sun wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi David,
>>>>
>>>> It 'd be great if you are willing to fix these build issues, since you
>>>> just went through a big release in Geronimo. :)
>>>>
>>>> I know the maven release plugin isn't friendly to use some cases, so
>>>> it is best we get these resolved to make our release process a bit
>>>> easier.
>>>>
>>>> EBA plugin would be a very nice add-on, if it comes in time with the
>>>> release.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Lin
>>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to understand the problems you see better, but I do not
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> the maven background you guys have, any chance you could explain what
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> problems are, why they are problems and the solution at some point?
>>>>>
>>>>> The biggest immediate problem is that without correct svn info you can't
>>>>> do
>>>>> a release with the release plugin. I'm pretty sure the way its set up
>>>>> now,
>>>>> when you try, the tag will be under maven's apache pom, not aries.
>>>>> (you'll
>>>>> fail unless you happen to be a maven committer too). You definitely
>>>>> don't
>>>>> want to try to do a release without the release plugin.
>>>>>
>>>>> Organizationally there's no way that for instance blueprint,
>>>>> application,
>>>>> and samples should always be released in synchrony. Any time two of
>>>>> them
>>>>> happen to be ready for release at the same time it will be purely
>>>>> accidental. Right now everyone wants to get a milestone out the door,
>>>>> but
>>>>> looking at the different projects their state of completion is pretty
>>>>> much
>>>>> wildly different. A decision to release all of them at once is not
>>>>> based in
>>>>> any way on them being equally complete. I'm suggesting that since build
>>>>> fixes are needed anyway, why not set up a maintainable structure that
>>>>> will
>>>>> continue to work beyond this publicity release. The benefit to users is
>>>>> that aries will be able to release bits in a timely fashion; otherwise
>>>>> the
>>>>> entire project will never be in a releasable state at once. (I'm only
>>>>> exaggerating a little bit :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> What got me looking at this at all is what look like wild gyrations that
>>>>> don't really use maven properly to get an .eba (or some artifact) out
>>>>> the
>>>>> door. This might be ok for one release but (a) I think this can be done
>>>>> directly with the assembly plugin short term and (b) an eba-maven-plugin
>>>>> seems like the obvious more long term solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm willing to fix the build and probably work on an eba plugin, but
>>>>> want to
>>>>> be sure this is ok with everyone first.
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Alasdair
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 23 Feb 2010, at 18:18, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This discussion got me worried enough to take a look at the aries
>>>>>>> build.
>>>>>>> Now I'm even more worried.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While it might feel good to try to push out a release as fast as
>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>> I'd prefer to see a sustainable build system in place first. So far
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> looks to me as if aries is going to be a bunch of loosely coupled
>>>>>>> subprojects. Building them all at once is not going to work for long.
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> think we should recognize that and put that in the build system now.
>>>>>>> To me
>>>>>>> this means:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. a parent pom that isn't at the root of the svn trunk.
>>>>>>> 2. each subproject has pom info sufficient so it can be released
>>>>>>> (mostly
>>>>>>> svn info) (right now this is completely missing everywhere as far as
>>>>>>> I can
>>>>>>> see, which will result in ares getting tagged into svn as part of the
>>>>>>> apache
>>>>>>> pom)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We can still have a "fake" pom that builds everything, but it won't be
>>>>>>> part of any release procedure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Having separately released subprojects does not prevent having a
>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>> vote on all the releases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd suggest a few other pom tweaks such as using resources and
>>>>>>> filtered-resources to distinguish when filtering is called for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In addition relevant to this particular bit of the thread, we need an
>>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin to assemble ebas. Getting this into a first release
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> be a great idea IMO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there's general agreement I can spend some time playing with the
>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>> and possibly working on the eba plugin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 19 February 2010 13:09, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to see us release the sample applications but I think
>>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>>> at least one complication. Both Blog Sample and AriesTrader
>>>>>>>>>> generate
>>>>>>>>>> EBAs
>>>>>>>>>> using different techniques - but both leverage the
>>>>>>>>>> maven-antrun-plugin
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> finally produce a file of type "eba".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I realised the .eba file generated in the blog-assembly module
>>>>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>>>>> being pushed into my local repo. I've made some changes to the
>>>>>>>>> pom.xml
>>>>>>>>> in ARIES-198 to fix this. So now it uses antrun to create the .eba
>>>>>>>>> artifact and the build-helper-maven-plugin to push the artifact to
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> local repo. I needed to add NOTICE and LICENSE files to the .eba for
>>>>>>>>> the ianal plugin in the verify phase to succeed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've not used the build-helper-maven-plugin before. Do you know if
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> will work with the maven-release-plugin to push the eba artifacts
>>>>>>>> when we do
>>>>>>>> a release? If so, then I should look at using the same mechanism for
>>>>>>>> AriesTrader.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think the result is that the eba will not be available in a maven
>>>>>>>>>> repository.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One of the differences is that AriesTrader first generates a jar
>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> maven-assembly-plugin and then copies this to an eba. The jar will
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> managed by maven and IIUC it should be deployable as an
>>>>>>>>>> "application"
>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>> with an extension of "jar" rather than "eba". If that is correct
>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>> perhaps delivery of an application jar is an acceptable approach
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> the 1st
>>>>>>>>>> release. Unfortunately I haven't actually setup my equinox
>>>>>>>>>> assembly
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> deploy the eba yet - it still deploys all of the individual
>>>>>>>>>> bundles.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Using the maven-assembly-plugin likely the preferred approach long
>>>>>>>>> term. Perhaps we could copy the artifact to .eba and use the
>>>>>>>>> build-helper-maven-plugin to remove the .jar artifact from maven
>>>>>>>>> control and add the .eba one?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can give this a try for AriesTrader. If it doesn't work out - is
>>>>>>>> there anything wrong with the approach I mentioned earlier of just
>>>>>>>> using the
>>>>>>>> jar artifacts rather than the eba artifacts? Will the current
>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>> support only look at *.eba archives?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to see at least those included:
>>>>>>>>>>> * blueprint
>>>>>>>>>>> * jmx
>>>>>>>>>>> * jndi
>>>>>>>>>>> * transaction
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think applications are really usable yet and I haven't
>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>> looked at JPA yet, so can't tell about it.
>>>>>>>>>>> The transaction component is functional and we've been using it
>>>>>>>>>>> mostly
>>>>>>>>>>> unchanged since a long time in ServiceMix.
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any particular concerns with it ? (I'm not talking
>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>> declarative transactions for blueprint, note).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 04:19, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the response (even while on vacation!) ... and for
>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteering
>>>>>>>>>>>> to be the release manager. Your response helps me get a better
>>>>>>>>>>>> picture
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the plans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I was really just interested in the general objectives and timing
>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> hadn't been discussed yet. To get the release out in Feb means
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> delivered next week. I'm afraid the hill might be a little too
>>>>>>>>>>>> steep to
>>>>>>>>>>>> climb that quickly but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The more communication the better. It's important to get
>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>> and planning along the same lines (or understand quickly if there
>>>>>>>>>>>> are any
>>>>>>>>>>>> differences of opinion). Knowing that you are thinking of
>>>>>>>>>>>> creating
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> release candidate next week means that we should be getting more
>>>>>>>>>>>> restrictive
>>>>>>>>>>>> on new content to avoid any unpleasant surprises.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any strong opinions on what should be in or out -
>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> general it doesn't make sense to release things that aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>> functional.
>>>>>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment I'm not sure what those are - but I suspect not all of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> components are fully functional yet (for example transaction).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joe, sorry I started setting myself up tuesday but am now out
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacation until monday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I think the 0.1 release should serve to get what we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> right now in the respectable form the ASF requires. So 'must
>>>>>>>>>>>>> haves'
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are to get the build in the right shape to create the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution
>>>>>>>>>>>>> files that are acceptable to the IPMC. I think each main area of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> code deserves at least a README to describe what's possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is the first release there are likely a few unknowns -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> w.r.t
>>>>>>>>>>>>> timing I hope/expect to get the release out this in feb. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular JIRAs or other issues you feel should be included
>>>>>>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. I'd like to rename the current JIRA version 1.0 to 0.1 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> target
>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues for 0.1 appropriately and issues not for 0.1 to target a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.2 version. WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 February 2010 15:39, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are your current thoughts and goals regarding the release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target dates?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it would be good if you could summarize your thoughts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps on a page in the wiki that we can keep updated as we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of particular interest would be the content that we would like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first release (clarifying what we consider "must have" from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have"), the current status of that content, target dates for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the process that we plan to use to generate the release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12 February 2010 09:39, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great, thanks a lot. Let us know if you need any help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess if you take some notes, it would be interesting to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the wiki.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Certainly will. It's been a while since I did one and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed quite a bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:32, Jeremy Hughes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <hu...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Kevan, thanks. I volunteer to be release manager.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 February 2010 16:38, Kevan Miller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ke...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like the consensus is for a release with all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version number. Best to start with a simple versioning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I don't view a 0.1 blueprint release as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Showing the ability to generate an Apache release is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the community. Would definitely like to see this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We'll need a release manager. Any volunteers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --kevan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aries release
Posted by Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org>.
On 2 March 2010 02:28, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I've done most of what I think is needed for aries to be basically
> releasable. There are some bits left and possibly stuff I've missed.
>
> 1. legal file review. There are a bunch of NOTICE files that claim that
> work from osgi is included. Really? license and notice files are supposed
> to apply to what is actually in an artifact or checkout. Are some of our
> source files copied from an osgi source? Also all the legal files that end
> up in binary artifacts need to be checked. Also we need to run the rat
> plugin: this should be configured in the default pom. Not sure if I will
> get to this.
>
> 2. actually using the eba-maven-plugn. I'm not entirely sure how to make
> sure that an eba is working so I didn't mess with this. I think the plugin
> itself is working well enough to use though.
>
> 2. ordering dependencies and dependency management. I find it convenient to
> have these alphabetized so I can find what I'm looking for, but I haven't
> done this in most poms. I'm not sure why there isn't a usable tool for
> doing this but I haven't found one. Dull but useful...
>
> 3. It would probably be a really good idea to run mvn dependency:analyze and
> look carefully at the results. The results from this can require
> interpretation so its best if someone who is very familiar with how the code
> works does this.
>
> 4. before a release all snapshots need to be resolved to released versions.
> I don't know if there are any snapshots.
>
> To summarize what I've tried to do:
>
> 1. default-parent has dependency management for the basic osgi dependencies
> that all projects are pretty sure to use including the pax stuff used mostly
> for testing.
>
> 2. each subproject has legal files in its checkout root
>
> 3. each subproject has an scm element in its pom, but no others do.
>
> 4. each subproject has dependency management for everything included in it.
> In addition, it has its subprojects listed in dependency management. (this
> is bent slightly for the samples). This means that
> (a) modules in a subproject don't need to include versions for use of other
> modules
> (b) you can get dependency management for all the modules in a subproject
> by depending on the subproject pom with scope import. (see the samples pom
> for an example).
>
> 5. As a result of (4), modules don't have any versions in any dependency
> elements.
>
> Release is going to involve...
>
> releasing the parent
In trunk/parent I tried:
mvn -DdryRun=true release:prepare -Papache-release
Providing 0.1-incubating for the release version
Defaulting to parent-0.1-incubating for the SCM release tag
Defaulting to 0.2-incubating-SNAPSHOT for the new development version
then when it builds the 'Top Parent POM' it outputs this:
[INFO] [INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] [INFO] Building Aries :: Top Parent POM
[INFO] [INFO] task-segment: [clean, verify]
[INFO] [INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] [INFO] [clean:clean]
[INFO] [INFO] Setting property: classpath.resource.loader.class =>
'org.codehaus.plexus.velocity.ContextClassLoaderResourceLoader'.
[INFO] [INFO] Setting property: velocimacro.messages.on => 'false'.
[INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.loader => 'classpath'.
[INFO] [INFO] Setting property: resource.manager.logwhenfound => 'false'.
[INFO] [INFO] [remote-resources:process {execution: default}]
[INFO] [INFO] [site:attach-descriptor]
[INFO] [INFO] [assembly:single {execution: source-release-assembly}]
[INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added, skipping
[INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already added, skipping
[INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already added, skipping
[INFO] [INFO] Building zip:
C:\cygwin\home\hughesj\oss\aries\trunk\parent\target\parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-source-release.zip
[INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ already added, skipping
[INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/LICENSE already added, skipping
[INFO] [INFO] parent-1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/NOTICE already added, skipping
[INFO] [INFO] Preparing source:jar
[INFO] [WARNING] Removing: jar from forked lifecycle, to prevent
recursive invocation.
[INFO] [INFO] No goals needed for project - skipping
[INFO] [INFO] [source:jar {execution: attach-sources}]
[INFO] [INFO] [javadoc:jar {execution: attach-javadocs}]
[INFO] [INFO] Not executing Javadoc as the project is not a Java
classpath-capable package
[INFO] [INFO] [gpg:sign {execution: default}]
so it seems to be outputting 1.0.0 artifacts still. Any ideas?
Then stops at the gpg stage. I thought it would prompt me for my key
passphrase at this point. Do I need gpg-agent to be running?
> updating the parent version wherever it is used (all subproject parents)
>
> releasing the subprojects in an appropriate order and updating their
> versions wherever they are used.
>
> It might be worthwhile changing the pom version to 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT
> (or something similar, 0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT?) before doing this because
> then the versions plugin can be used to update use of a subproject to the
> newly released version of what it uses. Going from
> 1.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT to 0.1-incubating won't allow this.
>
> As noted in the "root" pom, don't try to release the root pom and don't try
> release everything at once from the root pom.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
>
> On Feb 24, 2010, at 11:55 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> I started looking into cleaning up the build, and of course it is taking
>> longer than I expected.
>>
>> I'm seriously hampered by failing tests in a fresh checkout.
>>
>> There are some projects in application that stop compiling if you
>> alphabetize the dependencies. It looks like osgi 3 artifacts are getting on
>> the maven classpath before osgi 4.2 artifacts. Adding exclusions to the
>> dependencies seems to fix it if you can figure out where the out of date
>> jars are coming from.
>>
>> The build is already much closer to a multi-release model than a single
>> release model.
>>
>> I've diffed what I have so far and attached it to ARIES-173. It includes
>> scm info and a lot of version corrections. Due to the failing tests I'm not
>> too comfortable committing it.
>>
>> Is anyone else seeing test failures locally?
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Feb 24, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Lin Sun wrote:
>>
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> It 'd be great if you are willing to fix these build issues, since you
>>> just went through a big release in Geronimo. :)
>>>
>>> I know the maven release plugin isn't friendly to use some cases, so
>>> it is best we get these resolved to make our release process a bit
>>> easier.
>>>
>>> EBA plugin would be a very nice add-on, if it comes in time with the
>>> release.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Lin
>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:56 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I would like to understand the problems you see better, but I do not
>>>>> have
>>>>> the maven background you guys have, any chance you could explain what
>>>>> the
>>>>> problems are, why they are problems and the solution at some point?
>>>>
>>>> The biggest immediate problem is that without correct svn info you can't
>>>> do
>>>> a release with the release plugin. I'm pretty sure the way its set up
>>>> now,
>>>> when you try, the tag will be under maven's apache pom, not aries.
>>>> (you'll
>>>> fail unless you happen to be a maven committer too). You definitely
>>>> don't
>>>> want to try to do a release without the release plugin.
>>>>
>>>> Organizationally there's no way that for instance blueprint,
>>>> application,
>>>> and samples should always be released in synchrony. Any time two of
>>>> them
>>>> happen to be ready for release at the same time it will be purely
>>>> accidental. Right now everyone wants to get a milestone out the door,
>>>> but
>>>> looking at the different projects their state of completion is pretty
>>>> much
>>>> wildly different. A decision to release all of them at once is not
>>>> based in
>>>> any way on them being equally complete. I'm suggesting that since build
>>>> fixes are needed anyway, why not set up a maintainable structure that
>>>> will
>>>> continue to work beyond this publicity release. The benefit to users is
>>>> that aries will be able to release bits in a timely fashion; otherwise
>>>> the
>>>> entire project will never be in a releasable state at once. (I'm only
>>>> exaggerating a little bit :-)
>>>>
>>>> What got me looking at this at all is what look like wild gyrations that
>>>> don't really use maven properly to get an .eba (or some artifact) out
>>>> the
>>>> door. This might be ok for one release but (a) I think this can be done
>>>> directly with the assembly plugin short term and (b) an eba-maven-plugin
>>>> seems like the obvious more long term solution.
>>>>
>>>> I'm willing to fix the build and probably work on an eba plugin, but
>>>> want to
>>>> be sure this is ok with everyone first.
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Alasdair
>>>>>
>>>>> On 23 Feb 2010, at 18:18, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This discussion got me worried enough to take a look at the aries
>>>>>> build.
>>>>>> Now I'm even more worried.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While it might feel good to try to push out a release as fast as
>>>>>> possible
>>>>>> I'd prefer to see a sustainable build system in place first. So far
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> looks to me as if aries is going to be a bunch of loosely coupled
>>>>>> subprojects. Building them all at once is not going to work for long.
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> think we should recognize that and put that in the build system now.
>>>>>> To me
>>>>>> this means:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. a parent pom that isn't at the root of the svn trunk.
>>>>>> 2. each subproject has pom info sufficient so it can be released
>>>>>> (mostly
>>>>>> svn info) (right now this is completely missing everywhere as far as
>>>>>> I can
>>>>>> see, which will result in ares getting tagged into svn as part of the
>>>>>> apache
>>>>>> pom)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can still have a "fake" pom that builds everything, but it won't be
>>>>>> part of any release procedure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Having separately released subprojects does not prevent having a
>>>>>> single
>>>>>> vote on all the releases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd suggest a few other pom tweaks such as using resources and
>>>>>> filtered-resources to distinguish when filtering is called for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In addition relevant to this particular bit of the thread, we need an
>>>>>> eba-maven-plugin to assemble ebas. Getting this into a first release
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> be a great idea IMO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If there's general agreement I can spend some time playing with the
>>>>>> build
>>>>>> and possibly working on the eba plugin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 19 February 2010 13:09, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to see us release the sample applications but I think
>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>> at least one complication. Both Blog Sample and AriesTrader
>>>>>>>>> generate
>>>>>>>>> EBAs
>>>>>>>>> using different techniques - but both leverage the
>>>>>>>>> maven-antrun-plugin
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> finally produce a file of type "eba".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I realised the .eba file generated in the blog-assembly module
>>>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>>>> being pushed into my local repo. I've made some changes to the
>>>>>>>> pom.xml
>>>>>>>> in ARIES-198 to fix this. So now it uses antrun to create the .eba
>>>>>>>> artifact and the build-helper-maven-plugin to push the artifact to
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> local repo. I needed to add NOTICE and LICENSE files to the .eba for
>>>>>>>> the ianal plugin in the verify phase to succeed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've not used the build-helper-maven-plugin before. Do you know if
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> will work with the maven-release-plugin to push the eba artifacts
>>>>>>> when we do
>>>>>>> a release? If so, then I should look at using the same mechanism for
>>>>>>> AriesTrader.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think the result is that the eba will not be available in a maven
>>>>>>>>> repository.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One of the differences is that AriesTrader first generates a jar
>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> maven-assembly-plugin and then copies this to an eba. The jar will
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> managed by maven and IIUC it should be deployable as an
>>>>>>>>> "application"
>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>> with an extension of "jar" rather than "eba". If that is correct
>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>> perhaps delivery of an application jar is an acceptable approach
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> the 1st
>>>>>>>>> release. Unfortunately I haven't actually setup my equinox
>>>>>>>>> assembly
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> deploy the eba yet - it still deploys all of the individual
>>>>>>>>> bundles.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Using the maven-assembly-plugin likely the preferred approach long
>>>>>>>> term. Perhaps we could copy the artifact to .eba and use the
>>>>>>>> build-helper-maven-plugin to remove the .jar artifact from maven
>>>>>>>> control and add the .eba one?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can give this a try for AriesTrader. If it doesn't work out - is
>>>>>>> there anything wrong with the approach I mentioned earlier of just
>>>>>>> using the
>>>>>>> jar artifacts rather than the eba artifacts? Will the current
>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>> support only look at *.eba archives?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to see at least those included:
>>>>>>>>>> * blueprint
>>>>>>>>>> * jmx
>>>>>>>>>> * jndi
>>>>>>>>>> * transaction
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think applications are really usable yet and I haven't
>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>> looked at JPA yet, so can't tell about it.
>>>>>>>>>> The transaction component is functional and we've been using it
>>>>>>>>>> mostly
>>>>>>>>>> unchanged since a long time in ServiceMix.
>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any particular concerns with it ? (I'm not talking
>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>> declarative transactions for blueprint, note).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 04:19, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the response (even while on vacation!) ... and for
>>>>>>>>>>> volunteering
>>>>>>>>>>> to be the release manager. Your response helps me get a better
>>>>>>>>>>> picture
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> the plans.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I was really just interested in the general objectives and timing
>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> hadn't been discussed yet. To get the release out in Feb means
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> delivered next week. I'm afraid the hill might be a little too
>>>>>>>>>>> steep to
>>>>>>>>>>> climb that quickly but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The more communication the better. It's important to get
>>>>>>>>>>> everybody
>>>>>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>>>>> and planning along the same lines (or understand quickly if there
>>>>>>>>>>> are any
>>>>>>>>>>> differences of opinion). Knowing that you are thinking of
>>>>>>>>>>> creating
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> release candidate next week means that we should be getting more
>>>>>>>>>>> restrictive
>>>>>>>>>>> on new content to avoid any unpleasant surprises.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any strong opinions on what should be in or out -
>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> general it doesn't make sense to release things that aren't
>>>>>>>>>>> functional.
>>>>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>>>> the moment I'm not sure what those are - but I suspect not all of
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> components are fully functional yet (for example transaction).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joe, sorry I started setting myself up tuesday but am now out
>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>> vacation until monday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I think the 0.1 release should serve to get what we
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> right now in the respectable form the ASF requires. So 'must
>>>>>>>>>>>> haves'
>>>>>>>>>>>> are to get the build in the right shape to create the
>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution
>>>>>>>>>>>> files that are acceptable to the IPMC. I think each main area of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> code deserves at least a README to describe what's possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since
>>>>>>>>>>>> this is the first release there are likely a few unknowns -
>>>>>>>>>>>> w.r.t
>>>>>>>>>>>> timing I hope/expect to get the release out this in feb. If
>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>> particular JIRAs or other issues you feel should be included
>>>>>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>>>>> say. I'd like to rename the current JIRA version 1.0 to 0.1 and
>>>>>>>>>>>> target
>>>>>>>>>>>> issues for 0.1 appropriately and issues not for 0.1 to target a
>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.2 version. WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 February 2010 15:39, Joe Bohn <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are your current thoughts and goals regarding the release
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>>>>>>>> target dates?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it would be good if you could summarize your thoughts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> email
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps on a page in the wiki that we can keep updated as we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>> progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of particular interest would be the content that we would like
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first release (clarifying what we consider "must have" from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "nice
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have"), the current status of that content, target dates for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> release,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the process that we plan to use to generate the release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12 February 2010 09:39, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great, thanks a lot. Let us know if you need any help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess if you take some notes, it would be interesting to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the wiki.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Certainly will. It's been a while since I did one and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed quite a bit :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:32, Jeremy Hughes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <hu...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Kevan, thanks. I volunteer to be release manager.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 February 2010 16:38, Kevan Miller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ke...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like the consensus is for a release with all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version number. Best to start with a simple versioning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I don't view a 0.1 blueprint release as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Showing the ability to generate an Apache release is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the community. Would definitely like to see this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We'll need a release manager. Any volunteers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --kevan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aries release
Posted by Jeremy Hughes <hu...@apache.org>.
On 2 March 2010 02:28, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I've done most of what I think is needed for aries to be basically
> releasable. There are some bits left and possibly stuff I've missed.
>
> 1. legal file review. There are a bunch of NOTICE files that claim that
> work from osgi is included. Really? license and notice files are supposed
> to apply to what is actually in an artifact or checkout. Are some of our
> source files copied from an osgi source? Also all the legal files that end
> up in binary artifacts need to be checked. Also we need to run the rat
> plugin: this should be configured in the default pom. Not sure if I will
> get to this.
I just tried it in blueprint/ - it complains at 2 unknown licenses.
Perhaps OSGi is one. I'll investigate tomorrow.
Cheers,
Jeremy