aries-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graham Charters <gchart...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Release by module - changes to trunk
Date Thu, 03 Feb 2011 11:58:27 GMT
I think we need a process that "...delivers a set of pluggable Java
components enabling an enterprise OSGi application programming model",
which is what we say Aries is all about.  I think we have to start
with the assumption that the process must not compromise our use of
OSGi.  In other words, each bundle we produce must be independently
semantically versionable (bundle version, package versions and package
import version ranges) following the OSGi semantic versioning best
practices.  With that assumption in mind, we need to work out how to
do releases in a way that's as simple as possible.

Whilst Geronimo and Karaf are probably the main consumers of Aries, I
am aware of others consuming subsets, e.g. Blueprint, JMX.  I like the
idea of having a place to find all the latest Aries bundles that have
been tested together, and we should preserve that, but that doesn't
necessarily mean they all have to be released in one go.  I also like
the idea of having a plugin that helps us validate semantic versions
as part of the release process.  We could also do something to help
determine which dependencies also need releasing.

Thanks, Zoe, for blazing the trail in a branch.  I look forward to
hearing what you find, and hopefully with the insights you'll get, we
can come up with something that satisfies all our needs.  No pressure
;)

On 2 February 2011 10:56, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@gmail.com> wrote:
> I do think the releases should be as easy as possible.
>
> Having each component with a different lifecycle is not an easy
> solution imho.
> Let's take a recent example.  In december, I asked for Karaf a release
> of blueprint, which ended up one months and a half later by releasing
> the whole 0.3.0 because there were lots of dependencies between
> various components.
>
> The problem is that having multiple release cycles only work:
>  * if the component are really not too tied together
>  * if people really use those components individually
>
> I don't think Aries components are independant enough, there are lots
> of dependencies between those and maybe I'm wrong but I think most
> users use a bunch of those components together and not only a single
> one.
>
> That means that when we'll prepare a new release of Karaf or Geronimo,
> we'll need the latest versions of everything, which I fear will lead
> to a few big releases every few months and not individual releases of
> components as you plan.
> I think this model works great for maven plugins or felix because the
> components are usually not used by the same people and are completly
> independant.
>
> FWIW, we experimented that for ServiceMix JBI components and moved to
> one release cycle per JBI component.   We ended up reverting to a
> single release because we had never any need for an individual
> release.
>
> On the release process, even if it does not take days, when you
> release five components, you need to release the first one, then
> update the pom of the second one and release it aso...
> You end up wasting time imho, whereas a single "release:prepare
> release:perform" should work from the root pom imho.
>
> All the semantic versioning information should be done where it belong
> to, at the package level and we could even have some automatic checks
> put in place to verify that if an api package has changed, the version
> change is semantically correct.
>
> I think the main question to ask is: who / when / why we'll we release
> individual components?  It seems the drivers so far have been Karaf
> and Geronimo and I don't recall anyone else asking for releases.   So
> we need to take that into acount and switching to more fine grained
> releases if nobody asks for those will be extra work for nothing.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 18:37, zoe slattery <zoe.slattery@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 01/02/2011 17:03, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>
>>> As I said in my previous mail, one possibility would be to split the
>>> release cycle and artifact versioning scheme from the osgi package
>>> versioning scheme.
>>> Which we already do to some degree when we release blueprint-bundle
>>> which contain the blueprint-api in version 1.0 and the implementation
>>> in version 0.3.
>>>
>> I think this is worth looking into.
>>>
>>> Honestly, given the hassle of releasing things, I think a single trunk
>>> + single release cycle is the easiest way to go.   I think if we have
>>> a simple release process, we could release things more often and maybe
>>> maintain branches.   I don't really see any problem in having
>>> blueprint-cm-0.4.0 being the same as blueprint-cm-0.4.1.  But if it
>>> takes 2 days to one person to do a release, less people will volunteer
>>> to do those, which is imho worse, as we won't deliver fixes to our
>>> users.
>>
>> The release process as it stands is actually very simple - and - though I
>> should probably not say it myself - it is well documented.
>> It took me a little time to do 0.3 but I had/chose to make fixes to a lot of
>> poms.
>>
>> I worry a lot about making the development process more complex. The reason
>> that I was fixing poms for 0.3 is that one or two people didn't
>> understand the pom construction, also there were a few licences to fix.
>> Without these issues (which are completely avoidable
>> by putting comments in the poms and running rat in the build) it would
>> really be quite fast to release the whole of Aries.
>>
>> Making the development process complex will make it harder to remember - and
>> will likely make releasing harder because people won't remember
>> the development process and the release manager will then have to fix it.
>>  Also, if it's so hard for us to think of what the process should be, isn't
>> that an indication that we are heading for something too complex?
>>
>> Zoe
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 16:22, Jeremy Hughes<hughesj@apache.org>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 1 February 2011 14:54, Guillaume Nodet<gnodet@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is very different from what we have I think, as gogo's root pom
>>>>> isn't used at all.
>>>>> Releasing gogo involves releasing each of the maven subproject
>>>>> independantly afaik.
>>>>>
>>>>> The main difference is that all felix releases consists of a *single*
>>>>> bundle.  If we go this way, that would mean that releasing blueprint
>>>>> only would require 13 releases.  Some of those just contain tests, so
>>>>> that does not make sense to me.  From an usability point of view, I
>>>>> would definitely not go that way.  I'd personaly rather go in the
>>>>> opposite direction and use a single reactor / release for all
>>>>> components.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another consideration is that I think we should tie the release cycle
>>>>> with the svn layout, i.e. if we want to keep each component with a
>>>>> separate lifecycle, we should have multiple trunks.   That's way
>>>>> cleaner imho (and much more git friendly btw).
>>>>
>>>> Lets discuss the multiple trunks idea a bit ... are you suggesting
>>>> something like:
>>>>
>>>> aries/application/branches
>>>> aries/application/tags
>>>> aries/application/trunk
>>>> aries/blueprint/branches
>>>> aries/blueprint/tags
>>>> aries/blueprint/trunk
>>>> etc
>>>>
>>>> We'd still be left with the multiproject issue - release blueprint
>>>> 0.3.1 for a single fix and all the blueprint bundles are released
>>>> whether they contain fixes or not. If each child of
>>>> aries/blueprint/trunk was only a single bundle (they are today, but
>>>> other top level modules like application would need some changes to
>>>> fit with this) ... then we could release each of them independently.
>>>>
>>>> But ... every time we release a bundle in blueprint we need to release
>>>> the 'uber' bundle - built from blueprint/blueprint-bundle. So, for
>>>> example, we would get to a situation where we release a fix to
>>>> blueprint-core @ 0.3.1 (and hence uber blueprint 0.3.1). Then
>>>> blueprint-cm needs a fix release - it's next micro number would be
>>>> 0.3.1 (we'd have to release uber blueprint @ 0.3.2).
>>>>
>>>> If blueprint-api then needs to release some additions to an interface,
>>>> then according to semantic versioning rules, it has broken
>>>> implementors of the interface, so its minor number goes up (to 0.4)
>>>> and of course blueprint-core implementing that would need to go up to
>>>> 0.4, and the uber blueprint bundle would go up to 0.4 too - but other
>>>> blueprint bundles wouldn't get released and hence stay at 0.3.
>>>>
>>>> This is a fairly complex process that we'd need to be careful to get
>>>> right.
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 15:25, zoe slattery<zoe.slattery@gmail.com>
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Felix
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I had a look at felix to see if I could work out how you do the
>>>>>> independent
>>>>>> releases. I didn't look through absolutely everything but
>>>>>> I only found two modules that had sub-modules (gogo and http). Of
those
>>>>>> two
>>>>>> it looks as though the pom structure in gogo might be similar
>>>>>> to what we need in Aries. Is this a model you would recommend? Or
is
>>>>>> there
>>>>>> something closer?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Zoe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am Montag, den 31.01.2011, 15:22 +0100 schrieb Guillaume Nodet:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wouldn't that imply that each bundle has its own lifecycle
?
>>>>>>>> I think a while ago we agreed on having one release per "component",
>>>>>>>> i.e. blueprint (which includes api + core + cm + ...).
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure how well this would go if we have blueprint-core
>>>>>>>> 0.4.0-SNAPSHOT depending on blueprint-api-0.3.0.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I bet you won't release blueprint-api as version 0.4.0 if it
is the
>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>> as 0.3.0, right ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> Felix
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  From a users point of view, it certainly does not help
because all
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> maven transitive dependencies are kinda screwed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 15:11, Felix Meschberger<fmeschbe@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am Montag, den 31.01.2011, 13:59 +0000 schrieb Jeremy
Hughes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Where an Aries module depends on other
Aries modules, it will
>>>>>>>>>>>> depend
>>>>>>>>>>>> on the released versions of the other modules
_until_ it requires
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> change in the module that it depends on,
at which stage it will
>>>>>>>>>>>> switch
>>>>>>>>>>>> to a dependency on the development version.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So for example, Blueprint 0.4-SNAPSHOT will
depend on quiesce
>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.3,
>>>>>>>>>>>> proxy
>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.3, testsupport 0.3 and  parent 0.3. If
blueprint 0.4-SNAPSHOT
>>>>>>>>>>>> needs
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> pick up a change in proxy the blueprint top
level pom will need
>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>>>>> modified to point to proxy 0.4-SNAPSHOT.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I would assume this means "depends on modified
API" and does not
>>>>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>>>> "depends on some bug fixed in the implementation",
right ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you're referring to the semantic meaning attached
to moving from
>>>>>>>>>> 0.3 to 0.4 then I think that would be taking this
discussion in a
>>>>>>>>>> different direction. But that is a good point. Before
getting into
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> semantic versioning discussion, I think the intent
of this was to
>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>> if there are broken tests in 0.4-SNAPSHOT of a module
which are
>>>>>>>>>> fixed
>>>>>>>>>> by pulling in 0.4-SNAPSHOT of its dependency then
its dependency
>>>>>>>>>> should be updated.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, this is not about semantic versioning (yet).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is about the following: Consider bundle X depends
on the API
>>>>>>>>> org.apache.aries.y.api of bundle Y. Now some implementation
of this
>>>>>>>>> API
>>>>>>>>> in package org.apache.aries.y.impl of bundle Y has a
bug which must
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> fixed. In this case the dependency of bundle X on Y should
not be
>>>>>>>>> changed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>> Felix
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>> Felix
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This will lead us towards being able to release
by module but it
>>>>>>>>>>>> implies
>>>>>>>>>>>> a change in development practice. I will
make the pom changes
>>>>>>>>>>>> locally
>>>>>>>>>>>> and test them but I'd like to check that
release-by-module is
>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> goal and that you all think this is a reasonable
way to be able
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> achieve it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Zoė
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
> ------------------------
> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> ------------------------
> Open Source SOA
> http://fusesource.com
>

Mime
View raw message