Rodney,
we were doing it until 2 weeks ago when we delayed doing it. But
frequent timed releases (checkpoints/milestones) is something we have
agreed on. We are doing one once the IDM API changes Shane is making
are agreed on.
Regards,
Anil
On 10/30/2012 10:05 AM, Rodney Russ wrote:
Maybe use timeboxed milestones (e.g. every 2 weeks) and point
dependent projects to those. I would think you would want those releases to be as quick
as possible given where we are at now and consider lengthening them once you get a Final
release out (i.e. more stable).
----- "Pete Muir" <pmuir(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On 30 Oct 2012, at 14:37, Anil Saldhana wrote:
>
>> Shane/Pedro,
>> I think we have to figure out a way by which we do not affect
>> projects such as Aerogear with our compilation issues.
>>
>> I think we should just cut checkpoints frequently. The projects
> using PL
>> need to be on checkpoints.
> Yes, this is definitely the right approach. There will be issues with
> trunk, it always happens whatever anyone aims for (somebody forgets to
> run the testsuite or something).
>
> We should instead encourage downstream projects to not use PL
> snapshots, but use the frequent builds that we promote (e.g.
> milestones, checkpoints, promoted builds, whatever). This has the
> added benefit that Maven builds aren't chasing a moving target which
> is very dangerous.
>
>> This occurrence of compilation problem was from Pedro. He buys us
> beer
>> next time. :)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Anil
>>
>> On 10/30/2012 08:53 AM, Anil Saldhana wrote:
>>> Bruno,
>>>
>>> challenges of unification. Hopefully the CI build notifications
> will
>>> help us get better. But this is a rare occurrence of compilation
> issue.
>>> That is why I suggest frequent checkpoint releases from PL such
> that
>>> projects such as Aerogear can depend on checkpoints rather than
> snapshots.
>>> Regards,
>>> Anil
>>>
>>> On 10/30/2012 08:34 AM, Bruno Oliveira wrote:
>>>> Good morning everyone.
>>>>
>>>> We on AeroGear have been using PicketBox and PicktLink for real,
> in
>>>> nowadays have 3 real dependencies:
>>>>
>>>> - picketbox-cdi which depends on picketbox-core
>>>> - picketbox-core which depends on picketlink
>>>> - picketlink
>>>>
>>>> Today I'm facing with compilation issues on PicketLink repository
>>>> (
https://github.com/picketlink/picketlink/commits/master), I know
>>>> about the fact that PicketLink is a work in progress, but I would
> like
>>>> to ask a favour.
>>>>
>>>> If the code doesn't compile and that's a working in progress
could
> you
>>>> please create a separated branch for it until the compilation
> issues
>>>> are fixed?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>