On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 3:40 AM, Brian Stansberry <
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.
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Alessio Soldano <asoldano(a)redhat.com>
> There you go... PR updated to consume the same api jar now released as
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 3:30 PM, David Lloyd <david.lloyd(a)redhat.com>
>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Alessio Soldano <asoldano(a)redhat.com>
>> > 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,
>> > CXF, JAXB-RI and JAXB API. In particular, the JAXB upgrade is for EE8
>> > 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
>> > tested within JBossWS only) and that does not satisfy a rule that
>> > 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
>> > 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
>> > While I see the point in requiring that only sufficiently stable
>> > are applied to the codebase, I'm wondering whether, maybe, we're
>> a bit
>> > too far with the rules. Brian wrote on this topic: "how to determine
>> > 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
Manager, Senior Principal Software Engineer
wildfly-dev mailing list