[wildfly-dev] Policies for merging PRs on master

[Stuart Douglas]

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 3:40 AM, Brian Stansberry <
brian.stansberry at 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.

Stuart



>
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Alessio Soldano <asoldano at 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 at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Alessio Soldano <asoldano at 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 at 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 at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/wildfly-dev/attachments/20171205/e8896c37/attachment.html