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?

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.

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? >> >> _______________________________________________ security-dev mailing list security-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev

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&gt; 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? >>>> >>>> >>>>