[keycloak-dev] Adapter Versioning

[Stian Thorgersen]

On 14 April 2016 at 15:15, Lance Ball <lball at redhat.com> wrote:

> Stian
>
> Thanks for being so patient with my pushback. :)
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Stian Thorgersen <sthorger at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Adding list back
>>
>> On 13 April 2016 at 21:27, Lance Ball <lball at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I'll take your word for it, but I honestly don't see how pushing a new
>>> release of _everything_ can possibly be easier than, for example `npm
>>> publish` for a single artifact.
>>>
>>
>> Releasing everything is going to be a "single" button click. Having the
>> ability to release micro releases of adapters may be something to consider
>> in the future if it does indeed become a problem.
>>
>
> Obviously, I agree that micro releases would be good - but I understand
> your position. All of this is hypothetical at this point anyway, since the
> node adapter bits I care most about are not yet full citizens and we have a
> little time to get all of our ducks in a row.
>

Now that we have someone on the team with NodeJS experience and you guys we
hope to make it a full citizen in 2.x, so only a few months from now :)


>
> 2) There is no change in the adapter between releases of Keycloak server.
>>>>> In this case, it's not necessarily a problem to release a new adapter
>>>>> version, but it seems noisy and pointless if the bits are exactly the same.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The plan is to have release notes that cover which adapters have
>>>> changed and which are required to upgrade (either because backwards
>>>> compatibility is broken with the server or due to a security fix)
>>>>
>>>
>>> But how is "Keycloak 2.7.0 works with foo-adapter 1.9.1 and greater" any
>>> better than "foo-adapter 1.9.1 works with Keycloak 1.9.1 and greater"? The
>>> first scenario is what will happen if adapters march in lockstep with
>>> Keycloak server, and the second is what will happen if they are released
>>> only when necessary. In either case, it is possible to be running different
>>> version numbers for foo-adapter and Keycloak server and still be functional.
>>>
>>
>> Being able to grab same version of everything is nice. Being able to not
>> have to upgrade everything is nice.
>>
>> Having to figure out what version belongs to what as a first time adapter
>> or when adding a new adapter is not so nice.
>>
>> Having to figure out what the version is going to be for each individual
>> bit when we are doing a collective release is not so nice. Having different
>> release cycles, etc, etc.. is not so nice. We are a small team with a large
>> amount of work so we can afford to do this as it's additional time spent
>> doing releases, which we will be doing every 6 weeks!! so we want to reduce
>> the pain of doing a release as much as possible.
>>
>
> Absolutely - I understand. We went through a lot of this soul searching
> with WildFly Swarm recently, and ended up allowing for separate versioning
> between "core" and "non-core" pieces of the project. There's not a lot of
> data to go on yet, so we'll see how that turns out. But in this case,
> wouldn't the most recent Keycloak server always just use the latest version
> of a given adapter for any new release?
>

Not sure what you suggesting, but someone (me) has to click the button to
release everything. That someone needs to know what version everything
should be released as. If everything is released as one version and I can
feed that version into my Jenkins job that releases everything it's much
simpler.


>
> Lance
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/keycloak-dev/attachments/20160414/a5ccb6fa/attachment.html