4:49 a.m.
Hi,
considering all the improvements in the build and testsuite recently
discussed here as well as the development for JAX-RS 2.1, I believe it's
time to create a 3.0.x branch and open up the master to future stuff.
Any comment? Clearly this comes with the need to deal with merges of bug
fixes to the 3.0.x branch...
Cheers
Alessio
--
Alessio Soldano
Web Service Lead, JBoss
5:28 a.m.
+1.
So we still need to find a place to run 3.0.x build ? Is there any
capacity on jbossws qa machine to run resteasy 3.0.x build ?
On 05/06/2016 05:49 PM, Alessio Soldano wrote:
Hi,
considering all the improvements in the build and testsuite recently
discussed here as well as the development for JAX-RS 2.1, I believe it's
time to create a 3.0.x branch and open up the master to future stuff.
Any comment? Clearly this comes with the need to deal with merges of bug
fixes to the 3.0.x branch...
Cheers
Alessio
5:44 a.m.
we can run all that on widlfy public CI, but given that project doesn't
properly run anywhere
without disabling half of the build profile and tests, I would rather work
on master and have that there.
3.0.x branch can be tested on same systems current master was.
For new stuff I can setup everything on https://ci.wildfly.org/
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Jim Ma <ema(a)redhat.com> wrote:
+1.
So we still need to find a place to run 3.0.x build ? Is there any
capacity on jbossws qa machine to run resteasy 3.0.x build ?
On 05/06/2016 05:49 PM, Alessio Soldano wrote:
> Hi,
> considering all the improvements in the build and testsuite recently
> discussed here as well as the development for JAX-RS 2.1, I believe it's
> time to create a 3.0.x branch and open up the master to future stuff.
> Any comment? Clearly this comes with the need to deal with merges of bug
> fixes to the 3.0.x branch...
> Cheers
> Alessio
>
_______________________________________________
resteasy-dev mailing list
resteasy-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/resteasy-dev
3:41 p.m.
Hi Tomaz,
I assume you're referring to the -DskipTests that's specified by Travis
CI when building the project [1] (the install command is followed by a
mvn test command though).
With the latest changes on current master, I'm locally building the
project properly with 'mvn clean install', even on a system whose
language is not English. Given some tries, what I think you need to do
is running at least to the post-integration-test phase.
This said, the build and test mechanism still need improvements.
Cheers
Alessio
[1] https://s3.amazonaws.com/archive.travis-ci.org/jobs/128168659/log.txt
Il 06/05/2016 12:44, Tomaž Cerar ha scritto:
we can run all that on widlfy public CI, but given that project
doesn't properly run anywhere
without disabling half of the build profile and tests, I would rather
work on master and have that there.
3.0.x branch can be tested on same systems current master was.
For new stuff I can setup everything on https://ci.wildfly.org/
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Jim Ma <ema(a)redhat.com
<mailto:ema@redhat.com>> wrote:
+1.
So we still need to find a place to run 3.0.x build ? Is there any
capacity on jbossws qa machine to run resteasy 3.0.x build ?
On 05/06/2016 05:49 PM, Alessio Soldano wrote:
> Hi,
> considering all the improvements in the build and testsuite recently
> discussed here as well as the development for JAX-RS 2.1, I
believe it's
> time to create a 3.0.x branch and open up the master to future
stuff.
> Any comment? Clearly this comes with the need to deal with
merges of bug
> fixes to the 3.0.x branch...
> Cheers
> Alessio
>
_______________________________________________
resteasy-dev mailing list
resteasy-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:resteasy-dev@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/resteasy-dev
--
Alessio Soldano
Web Service Lead, JBoss
7:09 a.m.
Yes I have that in mind as well as my somewhat failed attempt to
properly test codebase on WildFly CI (brontes before)
https://ci.wildfly.org/project.html?projectId=RestEasy&tab=projectOve...
to be tested both on windows and linux machines.
Which also shows that tests behave differently based on what platform they
run on.
--
tomaz
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 10:41 PM, Alessio Soldano <asoldano(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
Hi Tomaz,
I assume you're referring to the -DskipTests that's specified by Travis CI
when building the project [1] (the install command is followed by a mvn
test command though).
With the latest changes on current master, I'm locally building the
project properly with 'mvn clean install', even on a system whose language
is not English. Given some tries, what I think you need to do is running at
least to the post-integration-test phase.
This said, the build and test mechanism still need improvements.
Cheers
Alessio
[1] https://s3.amazonaws.com/archive.travis-ci.org/jobs/128168659/log.txt
Il 06/05/2016 12:44, Tomaž Cerar ha scritto:
we can run all that on widlfy public CI, but given that project doesn't
properly run anywhere
without disabling half of the build profile and tests, I would rather work
on master and have that there.
3.0.x branch can be tested on same systems current master was.
For new stuff I can setup everything on <https://ci.wildfly.org/>
https://ci.wildfly.org/
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Jim Ma <ema(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> +1.
> So we still need to find a place to run 3.0.x build ? Is there any
> capacity on jbossws qa machine to run resteasy 3.0.x build ?
>
> On 05/06/2016 05:49 PM, Alessio Soldano wrote:
> > Hi,
> > considering all the improvements in the build and testsuite recently
> > discussed here as well as the development for JAX-RS 2.1, I believe it's
> > time to create a 3.0.x branch and open up the master to future stuff.
> > Any comment? Clearly this comes with the need to deal with merges of bug
> > fixes to the 3.0.x branch...
> > Cheers
> > Alessio
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> resteasy-dev mailing list
> resteasy-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/resteasy-dev
>
--
Alessio Soldano
Web Service Lead, JBoss
3:45 p.m.
Do you already know that Travis CI won't run the build/testsuite for
branches? Otherwise we could simply go ahead using it.
Alessio
Il 06/05/2016 12:28, Jim Ma ha scritto:
+1.
So we still need to find a place to run 3.0.x build ? Is there any
capacity on jbossws qa machine to run resteasy 3.0.x build ?
On 05/06/2016 05:49 PM, Alessio Soldano wrote:
> Hi,
> considering all the improvements in the build and testsuite recently
> discussed here as well as the development for JAX-RS 2.1, I believe it's
> time to create a 3.0.x branch and open up the master to future stuff.
> Any comment? Clearly this comes with the need to deal with merges of bug
> fixes to the 3.0.x branch...
> Cheers
> Alessio
>
--
Alessio Soldano
Web Service Lead, JBoss
3:39 a.m.
Hi,
considering all the improvements in the build and testsuite recently
discussed here as well as the development for JAX-RS 2.1, I believe it's
time to create a 3.0.x branch and open up the master to future stuff.
+1, 3.0.x branch can be basically used for CP stuff
I would personally prefer to have new brach per new product minor release 3.0.z for 7.0,
3.1.z for 7.1, 3.2.z for 7.2
There may be requests for some features / enhancements (not related to JAX-RS 2.1 ) in
7.1 / 7.2 / 7.3
Only bug fixes should be done in micro version of component
Base on this I tend to think JAX-RS 2.1 development should be done in 4.0.0-SNAPSHOT
master / branch.
Project structure + versions cleanup should be done before proceeding with JAX-RS 2.1
stuff to avoid clean-up of multiple branches.
WDYT?
Rostislav
Any comment? Clearly this comes with the need to deal with merges of
bug
fixes to the 3.0.x branch...
Cheers
Alessio
--
Alessio Soldano
Web Service Lead, JBoss
_______________________________________________
resteasy-dev mailing list
resteasy-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/resteasy-dev
4:52 a.m.
> Hi,
> considering all the improvements in the build and testsuite recently
> discussed here as well as the development for JAX-RS 2.1, I believe it's
> time to create a 3.0.x branch and open up the master to future stuff.
+1, 3.0.x branch can be basically used for CP stuff
I would personally prefer to have new brach per new product minor release
3.0.z for 7.0, 3.1.z for 7.1, 3.2.z for 7.2
There may be requests for some features / enhancements (not related to
JAX-RS 2.1 ) in 7.1 / 7.2 / 7.3
One example of work not related to JAX-RS 2.1 is Elytron ++ RESTEasy integration
Only bug fixes should be done in micro version of component
Base on this I tend to think JAX-RS 2.1 development should be done in
4.0.0-SNAPSHOT master / branch.
Project structure + versions cleanup should be done before proceeding with
JAX-RS 2.1 stuff to avoid clean-up of multiple branches.
WDYT?
Rostislav
> Any comment? Clearly this comes with the need to deal with merges of bug
> fixes to the 3.0.x branch...
> Cheers
> Alessio
>
> --
> Alessio Soldano
> Web Service Lead, JBoss
>
> _______________________________________________
> resteasy-dev mailing list
> resteasy-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/resteasy-dev
>
_______________________________________________
resteasy-dev mailing list
resteasy-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/resteasy-dev
7:12 a.m.
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Rostislav Svoboda <rsvoboda(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
Base on this I tend to think JAX-RS 2.1 development should be done in
4.0.0-SNAPSHOT master / branch.
Project structure + versions cleanup should be done before proceeding with
JAX-RS 2.1 stuff to avoid clean-up of multiple branches.
Yes all cleanup/restructure of the code/project should be done before
JAX-RS 2.1 is worked on.
But given that spec is nowhere near its complete state I don't think we
need to worry about that just yet.
Main priority is to cleanup current codebase so it can be easily
mentainable for next 10 years with current functionality.
What we decide to call this version doesn't really matter. I would go for
something in 4.x instead of doing 3.5 or something like that.
once jax rs 2.1 work will start we can branch that to 4.x and use master
for 5.x and new jax-rs spec version.
Moving master to 4 as new major version would also align better with
project restructure.
--
tomaz
10:40 a.m.
I agree on the build refactoring being good in a major release, but to
me a major release deserves actual major new features brought to the users.
So I would start by bumping up to 3.1.x , fixing the build and testsuite
and than if we eventually have something related to JAX-RS 2.1 or any
major new feature we move to 4.x
Cheers
Alessio
Il 09/05/2016 14:12, Tomaž Cerar ha scritto:
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Rostislav Svoboda
<rsvoboda(a)redhat.com <mailto:rsvoboda@redhat.com>> wrote:
Base on this I tend to think JAX-RS 2.1 development should be done
in 4.0.0-SNAPSHOT master / branch.
Project structure + versions cleanup should be done before
proceeding with JAX-RS 2.1 stuff to avoid clean-up of multiple
branches.
Yes all cleanup/restructure of the code/project should be done before
JAX-RS 2.1 is worked on.
But given that spec is nowhere near its complete state I don't think
we need to worry about that just yet.
Main priority is to cleanup current codebase so it can be easily
mentainable for next 10 years with current functionality.
What we decide to call this version doesn't really matter. I would go
for something in 4.x instead of doing 3.5 or something like that.
once jax rs 2.1 work will start we can branch that to 4.x and use
master for 5.x and new jax-rs spec version.
Moving master to 4 as new major version would also align better with
project restructure.
--
tomaz
_______________________________________________
resteasy-dev mailing list
resteasy-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/resteasy-dev
--
Alessio Soldano
Web Service Lead, JBoss
10:10 a.m.
- Weinan Li
On May 9, 2016, at 4:39 PM, Rostislav Svoboda
<rsvoboda(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> considering all the improvements in the build and testsuite recently
> discussed here as well as the development for JAX-RS 2.1, I believe it's
> time to create a 3.0.x branch and open up the master to future stuff.
+1, 3.0.x branch can be basically used for CP stuff
I would personally prefer to have new brach per new product minor release 3.0.z for 7.0,
3.1.z for 7.1, 3.2.z for 7.2
I'm afraid that would be too complex. But we can
try.
There may be requests for some features / enhancements (not related
to JAX-RS 2.1 ) in 7.1 / 7.2 / 7.3
Only bug fixes should be done in micro version of component
Base on this I tend to think JAX-RS 2.1 development should be done in 4.0.0-SNAPSHOT
master / branch.
+1
Project structure + versions cleanup should be done before proceeding
with JAX-RS 2.1 stuff to avoid clean-up of multiple branches.
+1
WDYT?
Rostislav
> Any comment? Clearly this comes with the need to deal with merges of bug
> fixes to the 3.0.x branch...
> Cheers
> Alessio
>
> --
> Alessio Soldano
> Web Service Lead, JBoss
>
> _______________________________________________
> resteasy-dev mailing list
> resteasy-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/resteasy-dev
>
_______________________________________________
resteasy-dev mailing list
resteasy-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/resteasy-dev
10:27 a.m.
Il 09/05/2016 17:10, Weinan Li ha scritto:
- Weinan Li
> On May 9, 2016, at 4:39 PM, Rostislav Svoboda <rsvoboda(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> considering all the improvements in the build and testsuite recently
>> discussed here as well as the development for JAX-RS 2.1, I believe it's
>> time to create a 3.0.x branch and open up the master to future stuff.
> +1, 3.0.x branch can be basically used for CP stuff
>
> I would personally prefer to have new brach per new product minor release 3.0.z for
7.0, 3.1.z for 7.1, 3.2.z for 7.2
I'm afraid that would be too complex. But we can try.
We'll definitely try;
we've been doing that with JBossWS in the last 5+
years, event if that' s a smaller project, and it has helped a lot.
Cheers
Alessio
--
Alessio Soldano
Web Service Lead, JBoss
3170
days inactive
3175
days old
11 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Alessio Soldano -
Jim Ma -
Rostislav Svoboda -
Tomaž Cerar -
Weinan Li