Sorry, I dropped the list on my last post; see below...
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Brian Stansberry <
brian.stansberry(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Stuart Douglas
<stuart.w.douglas(a)gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 3:40 AM, Brian Stansberry <
> brian.stansberry(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I think if we were going to do this it should probably be something
> reviewers can ask for on specific PR. The TCK uses a *lot* more resources
> than a standard CI run, so we need to make sure we limit it to cases where
> it is required.
>
Yes, for sure we wouldn't want to do this broadly; submitters or reviewers
should ask.
I had in mind a fairly limited set of scenarios. Things like major/minor
version bumps of the big EE components, or some large scale change with
fairly clear TCK implications where we'd be reluctant to undo the change if
it caused a problem. *Perhaps* core upgrades, as those somewhat amount to
the latter. And then late in the cycle some last minute fixes where we
sometimes ask for a custom run anyway.
Doing custom runs doesn't buy much for small changes where if they fail
TCK after merge we just revert them or we can spend a few days sorting the
problem without stressing out.
> Stuart
>
>
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
--
Brian Stansberry
Manager, Senior Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat