Re: [jdf-dev] New versioning and organisation strategy

From: "Pete Muir" <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Rafael Benevides" <benevides(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "Jason Porter" <jporter(a)redhat.com&gt;, jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Sent: Friday, July 5, 2013 8:42:06 AM Subject: Re: [jdf-dev] New versioning and organisation strategy It does, I think, do you see any concerns Jason? On 5 Jul 2013, at 15:25, Rafael Benevides <benevides(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Yes > > Em 05/07/13 11:20, Jason Porter escreveu: >> Will this incorporate the versioning changes we discussed at >> JUDCon:Brazil? >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Rafael Benevides" <benevides(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> To: jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org, "Peter Muir" <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2013 8:22:29 AM >>> Subject: Re: [jdf-dev] New versioning and organisation strategy >>> >>> After considering the feedback and after more brainstorming over the >>> migration plan, we have a now a more detailed and tunned proposal on the >>> new versioning and organization strategy. In the attached PDF you will >>> find this detailed plan with all artifacts changes needed. >>> >>> It's also a good opportunity to update stacks.yaml format (and client) >>> to 1.1.0 >>> >>> Please, take a look on the attached plan and let us know what you think >>> about it. The migration work should start by now on developer branches. >>> >>> Thank you >>> >>> Em 25/04/13 14:18, Rafael Benevides escreveu: >>>> One thing that came in my mind is when to move the versions of >>>> Archetypes, Runtimes and BOMs to Stacks.yaml? >>>> >>>> I used to add only .Final (will be -bom-x) version of BOMs to >>>> Stacks.yaml. >>>> >>>> In the Case of Archetypes, I'm continuously updating it to the latest >>>> version (even being a CR - Candidate Release). >>>> >>>> For Runtimes, starting by EAP 6.1 Alpha (them Beta), I'm adding it >>>> with the "Early Access" label. >>>> >>>> Do we still follow this schema ? >>>> >>>> BOM: Only -bom-X release ? >>>> Archetypes: Every -atype-X release ? >>>> Runtime: Every "Early Access" and Product release ? >>>> >>>> By the way? How will we differ the "Candidate Release" from ".Final" >>>> Release ? >>>> >>>> Em 25/04/13 11:20, Marek Novotny escreveu: >>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>> Hash: SHA1 >>>>> >>>>> On 04/25/2013 04:13 PM, Pete Muir wrote: >>>>>> On 25 Apr 2013, at 14:46, Max Rydahl Andersen <manderse(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Trying to grok consequences. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On first read it seems it does not change anything - stacks.yml >>>>>>> will just refer to these and we can use them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But will the archetypes still support enterprise=true|false flag ? >>>>>> No. They will be product only. There may be other upstream community >>>>>> archetypes, but they will be project specifically. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Will -qs-1 be adjusted to -qs-1-redhat-NN pattern when put into >>>>>>> products or does that go away for these cases? >>>>>> No, these are the product BOMs. >>>>>> >>>>>> We would no longer bundle them in the product zip repos, instead >>>>>> just deliver them online via maven.repository.redhat.com >>>>> that supposes to finish/change the uploading process as >>>>> maven.repository.redhat.com's content is currently only extracted >>>>> product zips. >>>>>>> /max >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:55:44AM +0100, Pete Muir wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rafael, Jason and I did a brainstorm about this at JUDCon Brazil, >>>>>>>> and came up with the following proposal: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * jdf plugin for forge - longer term needs rolling into Forge >>>>>>>> core. This is issue https://issues.jboss.org/browse/FORGE-378. As >>>>>>>> this is proposed for Forge 2, we suggest not altering the version >>>>>>>> or group id of this plugin >>>>>>>> * qstools - version scheme (starting 1.x) is good. Alter group id >>>>>>>> when we do the next major release only >>>>>>>> * quickstarts >>>>>>>> - change group id to follow products: >>>>>>>> - org.jboss.quickstart.eap, org.jboss.quickstart.jdg etc. >>>>>>>> - add a sandbox group id which covers quickstarts not in >>>>>>>> products >>>>>>>> - change versions to follow products major.minor.micro version, >>>>>>>> with a qualifier to allow bug fixes: >>>>>>>> - e.g. 6.0.1-qs-1, 6.0.1-qs-2 etc >>>>>>>> * archetypes >>>>>>>> - use group id scheme same as quickstarts but use >>>>>>>> org.jboss.archetype.eap etc. >>>>>>>> - follow same version scheme as quickstarts, but use -atype-1 >>>>>>>> etc. >>>>>>>> * BOMs >>>>>>>> - use group id scheme same as quickstarts but use >>>>>>>> org.jboss.bom.eap etc. >>>>>>>> - follow same version scheme as quickstarts, but use -bom-1 >>>>>>>> - projects will be encouraged to create BOMs as well >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let me know what you think, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Pete >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> jdf-dev mailing list >>>>>>>> jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> jdf-dev mailing list >>>>>> jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev >>>>>> >>>>> - -- Marek Novotny >>>>> - -- >>>>> WFK and Seam Product Lead >>>>> >>>>> Red Hat Czech s.r.o. >>>>> Purkynova 99 >>>>> 612 45 Brno >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> jdf-dev mailing list >>>>> jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> jdf-dev mailing list >>> jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev >