[jbosstools-dev] [Soa-tools-list] Locus 1.1.0 is released

[Rob Cernich]

> Just since it seems a few key points about locus seem forgotten here are a
> few reminders:
> 
> Locus is *not* an updatesite to use in a way that exposes it to users - it is
> to be used to be included in other updatesites.
> We used nexus to publish Locus so we can gather experience to use just pure
> mvn deploy, meaning:

Don't you have to jump through hoops in the pom to get nexus dependencies incorporated into a tycho project?  Is the use case that specific Locus plugins will be added to a target platform, resolved through a normal dependency (as opposed to using a p2 repo in the pom)?  Sorry in advance for my ignorance here (seems like I might learn something).

>   a) no need for maintaining external buld scripts for publishing
>   b) stop/reduce the amount needed for publishing (being able to have others
>   than a few people do these releases)
>   c) stop hiding or allowing "I can just edit the produced content manually
>   on the running server"
> 
> About C - if the html is so often wrong these needs to change then that
> should simply not be included in the published updatesite zip;
> or we simply do a basic respin to fix it - everything is tracked in git as
> opposed to "change it live on the server".
> 
> I think doing a basic 1.1.1.Final (or even just 1.1.0.Final) with the current
> locus setup is a trivial excercise compared to any manual
> edits and tweaking which then gets lots for next time we build it.
> 
> /max
> 
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:04:27AM -0400, Max Andersen wrote:
> >Guys,
> >
> >Just do a 1.1.1.Final and get it over with.
> >
> >It really shouldn't be this long to get done. That is the same as doing the
> >mirroring and done much faster.
> >
> >It's just a quick update to fix minor issue for consistency.
> >
> >1.2.0.Final makes no sense since we didn't change anything functionality
> >wise.
> >
> >1.1.0.1.Final is just as borked to use as 1.1.0.
> >
> >And "lets just change the index html straight on apache" is pointless since
> >that is just continue doing things in a way that can't be reproduced easily
> >and hides the actual changes (no matter how small)
> >
> >/max
> >
> >/max (sent from my phone)
> >
> >
> >> On 22/10/2013, at 20.43, Rob Cernich <rcernich at redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Maybe I've missed something in this whole discussion, but isn't a version
> >> of Locus simply a collection of specific versions of various OSGi-fied
> >> plugins?  If so, a version of Locus is simply a version in a pom (that
> >> creates Locus), a tag in source control, some text in a p2 repository and
> >> a path segment in a URL.  If it is that simple, can't we just mirror
> >> what's already out there to a different folder and everybody can simply
> >> update their Locus references to point to the new URL?
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> Since the change we're proposing is really a non-change (just cosmetic
> >>> alterations), why not 1.1.1.Final (maintenance) or even 1.1.0.1.Final
> >>> (trivial maintenance)?
> >>>
> >>> 1.2.0 suggests "we actually did something new" not "due to the limits of
> >>> Nexus / Maven we are required to bump the version simply to adhere to
> >>> versioning conventions that state we should have '.Final' as the
> >>> qualifier on a release even though there's no actual IU in the site
> >>> which contains this version, so it's entirely just a label".
> >>>
> >>> The more I think about this, the more the idea of having to respin
> >>> simply for a cosmetic alteration seems pointless. Bumping the version
> >>> means I'll have to push new bits onto download.jboss.org AND JBTIS will
> >>> have to (again) update their TP references in order to pull down *the
> >>> identical bits*. That's a lot of cascading work for a purely cosmetic
> >>> change.
> >>>
> >>> So, other than the fact that the site doesn't have .Final in Nexus, and
> >>> it says "Nightly" instead of "Stable", do we *REALLY* need to bother?
> >>>
> >>> Surely these are trivial problems we can fix in concert with some ACTUAL
> >>> fixes or new content in Locus, for the 1.2 release in the far-flung
> >>> future.
> >>>
> >>> WDYT?
> >>>
> >>>> On 10/22/2013 10:59 AM, Mickael Istria wrote:
> >>>>> On 10/22/2013 03:32 PM, Nick Boldt wrote:
> >>>>> -1 for fake commits just to bump the timestamp. A rebuild should
> >>>>> change nothing but the build ID (build timestamp + build number).
> >>>> I'm ok with that.
> >>>>> +1 for re-releasing the bits as 1.1.0.Final, with the corrected
> >>>>> index.html ("Stable Release" not "Nightly Build")
> >>>> What about 1.2.0.Final? I've already made 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT follow 1.1.0 so
> >>>> 1.2.0.Final would be easier.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Mickael Istria
> >>>> Eclipse developer at JBoss, by Red Hat <http://www.jboss.org/tools>
> >>>> My blog <http://mickaelistria.wordpress.com> - My Tweets
> >>>> <http://twitter.com/mickaelistria>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Nick Boldt :: JBoss by Red Hat
> >>> Productization Lead :: JBoss Tools & Dev Studio
> >>> http://nick.divbyzero.com
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> jbosstools-dev mailing list
> >>> jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> jbosstools-dev mailing list
> >> jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev
>