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@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@redhat.com> wrote:

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Alessio Soldano <asoldano@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@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@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev