4:31 a.m.
That would be really useful as we should be coordinating these via the
component leads rather than just at the very end.
On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 10:23 AM Carlo de Wolf <cdewolf(a)redhat.com> wrote:
The tool is not WildFly specific, so it should be able to run on any
project.
Carlo
On 03-09-19 11:01, Darran Lofthouse wrote:
An e-mail report would be really good, component leads may want to apply
the update to their own projects first to double check.
On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 9:55 AM Tomas Hofman <thofman(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 02/09/2019 17:55, Brian Stansberry wrote:
> > Hi Tomas,
> >
> > Can this generate emails to this list instead of PRs? Processing PRs is
> > expensive, both in terms of burden on our somewhat overburdened CI and
> in terms
> > of forcing mergers to deal with a PR queue. I'm not opposed to ending
> up
> > getting PRs but I'd like to see any system producing acceptable inputs
> before
> > we let it at the PR queue.
>
> That's a good idea, we could definitely start with an email report. Would
> give
> us chance to get the configuration in shape without cluttering the PR
> queue. I
> will post it.
>
> I was thinking about what is the most easily consumable form to deliver
> this.
> If we do manual review first, than perhaps single large PRs is better
> than
> separate PRs for each upgrade, to minimize CI burden and generate less
> noise
> for PR reviewers.
>
> >
> > I'm glad to see the discussion of configurable rules, as that's quite
> > important. I wouldn't like to see anything proposed except micro
> version
> > updates or less than micro. No minors. If that's inappropriate for some
> > component then that could be adjusted for that one, but the default
> should be
> > micros only.
>
> Agree.
>
> >
> > I also think some sort of time delay is appropriate, probably at least
> a week.
> > Having an automated system race with the humans working on WildFly
> would be
> > annoying. Github already notifies us of possible upgrades to components
> with CVEs.
>
> I also think long interval is better. Even maybe rather than running on
> regular
> intervals it could be triggered manually by RC after every EAP release or
> during some part of the release cycle.
>
>
> Tomas
>
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Brian
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 2:52 AM Tomas Hofman <thofman(a)redhat.com
> > <mailto:thofman@redhat.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > would the Wildfly team be interested in (or opposed to) receiving
> component
> > upgrade PRs, which would be created automatically when a new
> component version
> > is released? (I'm talking about new micro/SP versions, depending on
> the
> > component, i.e. version that could be reasonably expected to be
> suitable for
> > consumption, without issues like breaking API changes etc.)
> >
> > I'm working on a tool [1], which is able to provide these PRs.
> >
> > The tool scans given project for dependencies, and then looks at
> what versions
> > of those dependencies are available in Maven Central and possibly
> other
> > repositories. I can configure rules for each dependency, that
> specify what
> > versions should be considered viable for upgrading (e.g. for
> > "org.picketlink:*"
> > we would only offer new "SP" builds in the same micro, for most
of
> the other
> > dependencies we would only offer new micros, and some artifacts
> would perhaps
> > be blacklisted). Example of this configuration is here [2].
> >
> > Advantages that I believe could be gained from this:
> >
> > * It would bring us an advantage of having new component micros
> tested soon in
> > Wildfly, and therefore having more confidence when we need to do
> the same
> > upgrades in EAP.
> >
> > * It would also help in preventing EAP running ahead of Wildfly in
> component
> > versions, which happens occasionally. EAP release coordinator
> usually spots
> > this problem and creates missing PR in Wildfly, but it's a manual
> check and
> > therefore a small risk remains.
> >
> > * It would ensure Wildfly is consuming latest component fixes.
> >
> > You can review PRs generated last week in my fork of Wildfly [3].
> >
> > It's a work in progress, I expect the tool and it's configuration
> would evolve
> > according to experiences we would get from using it...
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/TomasHofman/maven-dependency-updater/
> > [2]
> >
>
https://github.com/jboss-set/dependency-alignment-configs/blob/master/wil...
> > [3] https://github.com/TomasHofman/wildfly/pulls
> >
> > --
> > Tomas Hofman
> > Software Engineer, JBoss SET
> > Red Hat
> > _______________________________________________
> > wildfly-dev mailing list
> > wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Brian Stansberry
> > Manager, Senior Principal Software Engineer
> > Red Hat
>
> --
> Tomas Hofman
> Software Engineer, JBoss SET
> Red Hat
> _______________________________________________
> wildfly-dev mailing list
> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing
listwildfly-dev@lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev