10:40 a.m.
Great. :)
One thing I think we need to do is figure out how to get custom TCK runs
for PR branches. The TCK is a big part of our test coverage, and one way to
not "use master as a test bed" is to get a check of a branch on the TCK
before we merge it.
I know we've gotten TCK runs of ad-hoc branches before, so by "figure out"
I mean work out how to make that not overly painful, come to some sort of
consensus on when it's worthwhile, etc.
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Alessio Soldano <asoldano(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
There you go... PR updated to consume the same api jar now released
as
final.
Cheers
Alessio
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 3:30 PM, David Lloyd <david.lloyd(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Alessio Soldano <asoldano(a)redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > As suggested by Brian, I'd like to draw attention to the discussion on
> > https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly/pull/10604 .
> > The PR is an upgrade of the webservices stack, including JBossWS, Apache
> > CXF, JAXB-RI and JAXB API. In particular, the JAXB upgrade is for EE8
> and
> > better JDK 9 compatibility.
> > Now, due to the upgrade of the JAXB API spec jar, the PR is essentially
> > stalled since 20 days; the new spec is released as an alpha (as it's
> been
> > tested within JBossWS only) and that does not satisfy a rule that
> requires
> > any artifact being pulled to be Final.
> > We're talking about a spec jar, we could simply re-tag that as Final,
> > chances are we won't need changes any time soon there anyway, but as
> Tomaz
> > pointed out, in principle that would be dishonest.
>
> My opinion is that you should go ahead and make a .Final tag. In the
> (unlikely?) event that the spec has to be modified for some reason, I
> think you could make a 1.0.1.Final tag and call it a "bug fix".
>
> The alternative is to simply wait. I don't think there is any middle
> position.
>
> > While I see the point in requiring that only sufficiently stable
> upgrades
> > are applied to the codebase, I'm wondering whether, maybe, we're going
> a bit
> > too far with the rules. Brian wrote on this topic: "how to determine
> that
> > something is good enough to go in without using master as a test bed" ?
>
> I don't think we are; I agree with the policy as it stands. If you
> look at it in terms of being able to release at any time, then it
> follows that everything _must_ be stable.
>
> --
> - DML
>
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
--
Brian Stansberry
Manager, Senior Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat